Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENCE

Food (Research and Development)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what action he is taking to promote food research and development, and to ensure that the results are applied to the public benefit.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): As the full Answer is rather long I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Skeffington: As the Minister acquiesced in closing down the Aberdeen laboratory and the experimental factory that did a good deal of pioneering work in connection with freeze-drying of food, and as the work on dehydration has been lost, can he say what steps the Government intend to take to bridge the gap between the purely scientific investigation and the food industry generally? There does not seem to be anything now.

Mr. Freeth: There is definitely a link. The food research associations under the D,S.I.R. are in constant communication with their respective industries and, on the purely biological side, the Agricultural Research Council is in touch with farmers through the N.A.A.S.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the preparation for research of that kind, and other forms of research, is being greatly prejudiced and undermined by the Government's vindictive, savage, ignorant, anti-educational—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have no hope of getting more Questions answered

if we have supplementary questions of that kind.

Mr. Hughes: May I ask my supplementary question without an adjective, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Following is the information:
Five establishments under the Agricultural Research Council, and two in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are engaged on food research and development. There are also five research associations, established by food processing industries, and supported by Government grant. Of the five establishments of the Medical Research Council concerned with human nutrition, two are engaged in research related to food. A Meat Research Institute is being established by the Agricultural Research Council in association with Bristol University, and the Council is also planning the establishment of a Food Research Institute in association with the University of East Anglia.
In addition to the work at their own stations, the research councils make grants to universities for scientific research related to food problems.
The results of research in this sphere are published in scientific and technical journals, and disseminated through liaison and information services including those of the research associations.

International Quiet Sun Year

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the International Quiet Sun Year programme.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: A co-ordinated programme of research has been arranged by the Royal Society's British National Committee for Co-operation in Geophysics, and comprises work at Government research establishments, work at Halley Bay, Antarctica, and work at universities.

Mr. Skeffington: May we have some assurance from the Minister that the results of this work will be co-ordinated and used rather better than appears to have been the case with some of the findings from the International Geophysical Year—as a result of which there seems to be a great deal of data which is not being used for any purpose, so far as can be ascertained?

Mr. Freeth: That is our earnest hope.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. In reference to Question No. 1,


if you objected to the adjectives I used, Mr. Speaker, you should surely have allowed me to ask my supplementary question without the use of adjectives.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Member will be kind enough to realise that I am under considerable pressure from the House to ensure that more Questions are answered. That means that all of us, or many of us—myself included—will have to change our habits.

Documents (Temperature Scales)

Mr. Bullard: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to prescribe or recommend the use of the centigrade scale of temperatures to replace the Fahrenheit scale in documents presented to this House and in official publications.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: No, Sir. There is no present intention of changing the practice of using whichever scale is more suitable or convenient for the particular purpose.

Mr. Bullard: I recognise the tremendous advantage in the centigrade scale in the scientific sphere, but would it not be a good thing to have some central direction as to which scale is to be used in official documents? We have had the Fahrenheit scale used in one Bill and the cenitigrade'scale used in another, for purposes which are substantially similar. Would it not be a good thing for the Government to take the lead in this matter, rather than leave it to the Air Ministry or the Meteorological Office to do so?

Mr. Freeth: At the moment it seems to us best to use on each occasion whichever scale is likely to be more acceptable to the people concerned, but I will note my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Bowles: Is the Minister aware that, since I raised this matter in connection with weather forecasts three weeks ago, I have had a tremendous number of letters, including three this morning by the 12 o'clock post, from Hampshire, Kent and Cornwall, agreeing with my suggestion? Is there any truth in the letter I have seen this morning, written by the Anti-centigrade Society, in which it says that it gathers that the

present proposal is to drop Fahrenheit altogether in May?

Mr. Speaker: The latter part of the supplementary question could not he in order.

Mr. Bowles: May I put it the other way? Is there any truth in the report that the Government are proposing to drop Fahrenheit in May?

Mr. Freeth: Any questions relating to the Meteorological Office must be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

Inter-Disciplinary Co-operation

Mr. Bence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what initiatives he is taking for inter-disciplinary cooperation in science.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: My noble Friend is well aware that some of the most significant scientific research work in recent years has been carried out on the borders between several scientific disciplines. The organisations for which my noble Friend is responsible, particularly the Research Grants Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, are anxious to support worthwhile research projects of this kind, and the work of the Research Councils and the Atomic Energy Authority often demands close collaboration between scientists of many different disciplines. But, of course, the conception of inter-disciplinary research projects is for the scientists themselves, and the initiative must inevitably rest with them.

Mr. Bence: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Can he give the House an assurance that scientists are not inhibited in any way in the development of their work in this interdisciplinary field by lack of funds?

Mr. Freeth: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is capable of a straightforward Yes "or" No "answer, because the worth-whileness of an individual project must always have a subjective element in the decision.

Biological Research

Mr. Bence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what additional financial assistance is being given to biological research.

Mr. Farr: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he will implement the proposals of the Royal Society's report on biological research which was appended to Command Paper No. 1920.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what additional financial assistance is being given to research in biology, as a result of the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Royal Society on Biology.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: As will be seen from the recently-published Estimates, the expenditure of the three research councils which support work in the biological field will, subject to the approval of Parliament, increase by 15 per cent. in 1963–64. Matters of organisation are still under consideration by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. As regards school curricula for biological students, I would refer the hon. Members to the replies given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Education, to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on 24th January and 21st February.

Mr. Bence: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any of this financial assistance given to biological research is provided by the War Office or the Air Ministry?

Mr. Freeth: Not without notice, and possibly the supplementary question would be better addressed to my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister realise that 15 per cent. is quite out of keeping with the demand put forward by Sir Howard Florey and his associates who wrote the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Royal Society on Biology?

Mr. Freeth: I do not think so, no.

Mr. Hirst: I thank my hon. Friend for his Answer, because it shows an advance. Will he have in mind the need to organise and finance research in biochemistry, because it is the same sort of demand and it needs the same sort of attention that I am sure that he will give to it?

Mr. Freeth: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is certainly the fact that we

are giving to biochemistry the same close consideration regarding organisation and scale as to the problems of biology.

Nutritional Research

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he will take steps to establish an institute of human nutrition in this country.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: No, Sir. The Medical Research Council already has five establishments engaged almost entirely on nutritional research, and other researches with a bearing on nutrition are pursued elsewhere by the Council, at institutes of the Agricultural Research Council, and by the other organisations including industrial research associations supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that at the International Congress on Food, Science and Technology held recently in London it was stressed that an institute for human nutrition was long overdue in Britain and in those circumstances will he reconsider his reply?

Mr. Freeth: At present my noble Friend's scientific advisers believe that better results will he obtained under our present system than by having a single centralised institute. Of course, this is always under review, as are similar matters.

Sir J. Maitland: Did my hon. Friend include Rothamsted in the list of institutes to which he referred? Is he aware that most valuable work has been carried out there in research into the production of proteins from vegetables and that one of the chief causes of undernourishment in the world is lack of protein?

Mr. Freeth: I am aware of that. I did mention the institutes of the Agricultural Research Council, and the excellent work on producing protein from vegetable matter at the Institute to which my hon. Friend referred was in my mind.

N.A.T.O. (Institute of Science and Technology)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what consideration he is giving to possible sites in Great Britain for one of the centres of the proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Institute for Science and


Technology; and whether he will urge Edinburgh as the venue for such a centre.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Some preliminary consideration was given to possible sites in the United Kingdom, but in the circumstances set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 13th March, my noble Friend does not think it necessary to pursue the matter at the present time.

Medical Research (Pneumoconiosis)

Mr. Harper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what is the amount of moneys allocated to the Medical Research Council's Pneumoconiosis Research Unit for its work on diseases of the lungs due to airborne dust.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The estimated expenditure in the Medical Research Council's Pneumoconiosis Research Unit in 1962–63 is approximately £105,000.

Mr. Harper: Surely that is not enough. Is the Minister aware that in 1962, 34 miners were found, after a post-mortem examination, to be suffering from the disease, although their X-ray plates had revealed no evidence of it, and that 57, whose X-ray plates indicated that they were suffering from the disease, were found, after a post-mortem examination, not to be suffering from it, making a total of 91 cases? Does the Minister think that this is a satisfactory service? In view of what I have said, will he do everything possible to provide more money for this research unit, so that it may be able to carry on its work more satisfactorily and give a more accurate service?

Mr. Freeth: I think it worth remembering that in 1960 a new unit, the epidemiological research unit was hived off from the pneumoconiosis research unit and on that in the current year an expenditure of an additional £26,000 has been undertaken there. The hon. Member will also be aware that researches into the diseases of the lung due to airborne dust are carried out at universities and hospitals under the National Health Service.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take into account the appalling figures of the results of this research work, as quoted by my hon. Friend, and see that a larger expenditure of money and a more efficient type of research is undertaken?

Mr. Freeth: I cannot accept that the research undertaken at present is inefficient. I have visited both these units and I was most impressed by the calibre of the people working there. The Medical Research Council has recently agreed to an extension of the unit's programme of investigation of airborne dusts. But in dealing with this difficult problem it is very much a question of finding a new lead-in and supporting it and not necessarily a question of expanding the type of work done at the moment.

Medical Research Units, Universities (Finance)

Mr. Alba: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he will take steps to co-ordinate the procedures of the Medical Research Council for financing research units in universities with the methods of financing research of the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Close co-ordination already exists between the Medical Research Council, the University Grants Committee, and the universities in the matter of financing medical research at the universities. In this the functions of the Council and the Committee are complementary. The arrangements are kept under continuing review by the bodies concerned.

Mr. Albu: Is the Minister aware that one of the complaints of medical research workers is that the Medical Research Council establishes a unit at a university and pays for it for three years and then leaves it to the university to carry on, and that very often the university does not obtain the funds from the University Grants Committee to enable it to do so?

Mr. Freeth: If a particular project is not able to be financed out of the funds received by the university from the University Grants Committee, it is open to the research worker to re-apply to the Medical Research Council for an extension of his grant, and a number have done so within the last six months. I am not suggesting that the present arrangements are absolutely perfect. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman will read the speech made by my noble Friend in another place on 27th February, he will


find that my noble Friend refers to the fact that he not only encouraged but initiated the general inquiry going on into the organisation and support for them.

Mr. Crossman: Is not part of the trouble due to the decision of the Government to cut, or to refuse to give to the University Grants Committee, the full sum for which it asks? Did not that destroy the balance between the amounts of money allocated to the M.R.C. and the universities, with the result that the universities were not able to take over from the M.R.C., and is not the solution to see that the Government pay enough to the M.R.C.?

Mr. Freeth: It is still the fact that the Medical Research Council has not been inhibited in giving grants for which the universities were not able to take over support due to lack of funds.

Mr. Crossman: That is not the question I asked. Is it not a fact that, as a result of having to continue projects which the universities would normally have taken over, the M.R.C. was unable to take up new projects with the result that many new projects were refused last year?

Mr. Freeth: I do not think that I can agree with the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has put his supplementary question. Certainly the number of possible projects which the universities might have taken on far outweighed any possible funds which they could have expected from the University Grants Committee.

Marine Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has now been made by the three-fold organisation set up by the Atomic Energy Authority in 1961 to carry out research into the problems of nuclear propulsion for ships; and how much of the £3 million he estimated would be spent in three years has now been expended.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Atomic Energy Authority, in collaboration with the British Ship Research Association, is now concentrating its effort on the Vulcain and integral boiling reactor

systems. Under the research programme of some £3 million announced in November 1961, about £1·1 million has been spent to date.

Mr. Digby: Is not that a little disappointing, as it has now been going on for a year and a half? Will my hon. Friend authorise further expenditure if necessary? Will he allow more scientists to concentrate on this project if they can be found?

Mr. Freeth: At the present time the shortage of money is not the factor which is inhibiting research, because we have still spent only just over a third of the money allocated. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the team working on these two reactors has not stated that the work is being held up through lack of funds.

Sir L. Ropner: Is it not a fact that the Mitchell Fairfield organisation is prepared to quote for a merchant ship now, guaranteeing price and performance and date of delivery?

Mr. Freeth: The advisers to the Government considered the drawings of the Mitchell reactor when they were deciding upon which two reactor systems to concentrate research. Even bearing in mind all the points which the creators of the Mitchell system claim for it, they came to the conclusion that the Vulcain and integral boiling water reactor systems were more likely to prove economic.

Mr. Bence: Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the Yarrow Admiralty Committee on the Clyde is being readily consulted and that information is being conveyed to it about what is going on in this development?

Mr. Freeth: As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said in this House, I think on Monday, the people at Yarrow have been brought into consultation.

Commander Courtney: asked the Parliamentary Secretary far Science if he will give the names of the Padmore Working group concerned with nuclear propulsion for merchant shipping, together with the names of the members of the study panel which made the decision to concentrate on the Vulcain and the integral boiling water reactors as


the two types most technically suitable for further development for marine propulsion purposes.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of the Working Group, together with those of the study panel which made the technical assessment of the various reactor systems.

Commander Courtney: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread anxiety caused by the fact that in this very important matter it seems that the Atomic Energy Authority is acting as judge and jury in its own case? Can he assure the House that the interests of private enterprise will be properly safeguarded both by the independence and by the technical qualifications of these gentlemen?

Mr. Freeth: I think so. The Study Panel was composed of three members of the Atomic Energy Authority, three members who were not members of the Atomic Energy Authority, and a chairman who was also not a member of the Atomic Energy Authority. With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, the Padmore Group, as it is commonly known, had on it a representative of the General Council of British Shipping and a representative of Lloyd's Register of Shipping as well as the director of the London Laboratories of the British Ship Research Association. The reports both of the Panel and of the Working Group were unanimous.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable anxiety among a large number of knowledgeable people that all is not really well with the experimentation which is going on at Risley? Would he agree to accept some quite independent knowledgeable expert, such as Professor John Kay, to see whether all aspects of the matter are being satisfactorily dealt with so that the general public who are interested in this matter can have satisfaction?

Mr. Freeth: The Working Group existed to advise the Government on this important matter and it set up the Study Panel in order to make the technical assessments. It considered a variety of possible reactor systems. It was unanimous in its choice of the two upon which it was decided that the Government should concentrate their efforts. I do not think

we can now start asking somebody to come in in order to criticise the unanimous opinion of this Study Group. I am certain that the group at Risley would welcome any expert who cared to go and discuss matters with it, bearing in mind the fact that commercial secrecy does enter into this problem.

Following are the names:
The Chairman of the group is Sir Thomas Padmore (Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Transport). The members are Sir William Cook (Atomic Energy Authority), Sir Victor Shepheard (British Ship Research Association), Mr. A. Logan (General Council of British Shipping), Professor J. Diamond (Manchester University), Mr. H. N. Pemberton (Lloyds Register of Shipping), Dr. E. Lee (Department of Scientific and Industrial Research), Rear Admiral R. S. Hawkins (Admiralty), and Mr. M. I. Michaels (Office of the Minister for Science). The panel which made the technical assessment of the various reactor systems comprised Professor J. Diamond (Chairman), Mr. H. N. Pemberton, Dr. J. E. Richards (British Ship Research Association), Captain L. D. Dymoke (Deputy Director of Marine Engineering, Admiralty) and Mr. S. Fawcett. Mr. F. W. Fenning and Mr. R. P. Kinsey (Atomic Energy Authority).

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made by the Atomic Energy Authority in the study of four possible reactor systems for ships; and which system is now considered most promising.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: As I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) on 27th November, the programme for research and development, financed by the Government, has been narrowed down to the Vulcain and integral boiling reactors, which have technical advantages worked out over the last year or two. Both types show promise in their present state of development: work on the Vulcain is perhaps more advanced, but the integral boiling reactor might prove more economic.

Mr. Digby: Can my hon. Friend say when a decision will be reached about these two reactors? Will there be any more research into the point that has been criticised—namely, the internal pumps?

Mr. Freeth: On the first part of that supplementary question, I hope that we shall be in a position to say whether either or both of the two reactor systems in fact


will prove to be economic by the end of the summer. On the second part, we do not accept the criticism that has been made about the pumps nor the point about radioactive steam which has been made in some quarters.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend now say why no emphasis has been laid on the marine engineering side for future development after the reactors have finally been put into operation? Is that not a point which requires examination?

Mr. Freeth: This point is under examination, because the British Ship Research Association has seconded people to the team which is doing the planning for the first nuclear merchant ship. The question of the design of the vessel is one of the matters on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is having conversations with the shipbuilding industry.

Research Associations (D.S.I.R. Grants)

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he is satisfied with the present method of determining the levels of grant made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to research associations; and if he will make it more flexible.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The grant to each association is fixed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research after discussion with its representatives, and in the light of all relevant circumstances. This method provides flexibility. My noble Friend and the Research Council are always ready to consider suggestions for improvement, and he has asked the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to request the Industrial Grants Committee to keep the matter under review.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Would he also consider whether or not his noble Friend should have a more direct approach to research associations to see if they have a point of view which would not always get through to him via the D.S.I.R.?

Mr. Freeth: I have not noticed any inhibitions on the part either of individual directors of research associations or the chairman of the committee of directors

of research associations to approach either my noble Friend or myself when they have thought it useful.

Mr. Albu: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many research associations are very dissatisfied with the level of grant which they receive from the D.S.I.R., particularly when they are concerned with defence or development research projects which cover a number of industries and which are, therefore, more difficult to finance than those that concern a single industry?

Mr. Freeth: I am not saying that the amount of money which goes to the research associations from the taxpayer's pocket is necessarily too large, or even at its optimum level. We have just instituted a new grant in order to stop up a lacuna which we felt existed. We must remember, however, that research associations exist for the benefit of their industrial members and their usefulness can be gauged to some extent by the level of contributions which their industrial members are willing to make.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what ear-marked grants have been made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to research associations; and how many applications are awaiting decisions.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: No grants have yet been made, but eight firm applications are now being considered.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I ask for an assurance that we shall not have to wait for the final Report of the Trend Committee before we can have a statement on this matter?

Mr. Freeth: No indeed.

Atomic Energy Authority, Aldermaston (Employment)

Mr. Peter Emery: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what information the Minister for Science gave the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority staff representatives whom he recently received about the prospects for employment at Aldermaston after the spring of 1964; and if he will make a statement.

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science to what extent changes in the programme of work to be undertaken by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment will necessitate staff changes at Aldermaston; and if the Authority expects to be able to offer comparable employment to the scientists and technicians whose services will no longer be required at Aldermaston.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: My noble Friend recently received a joint deputation from the staff and trade union sides of the Authority's Joint Industrial and Whitley Councils at which the situation was fully discussed. He confirmed to them that, while the load on the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment and its outstations was not expected to diminish substantially before March, 1964, a reduction thereafter could not be ruled out and the deputation asked that everything possible be done to minimise its effect on employees.

Mr. Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that that Answer is not entirely satisfactory? Aldermaston means not only A.W.R.E. but also A.E.I. Does my hon. Friend realise that the scientists at this institute are having great difficulty in finding new jobs? Will he co-operate with A.E.I. and also the Minister of Labour on the replacement of redundant scientists? Does not he think that this is a golden opportunity for the Government to be able to use these men in creating greater peaceful uses of atomic energy?

Mr. Freeth: In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, the operation or removal of the Associated Electrical Industries laboratory at Aldermaston is not a matter for which my noble Friend has responsibility. On the second part of the question, we are co-operating with all other Government Departments to alleviate the problems of any scientists or professional people who are made redundant from the Authority's staff. In regard to the third point, this of course would mean a substantial increase in Government expenditure.

Sir A. Hurd: Can my hon. Friend say how many men and women will be affected and whether all those who will be affected have been notified? Can he give an assurance that all the buildings and equipment at Aldermaston—established at very considerable expense—will

be continued for some useful purposes after 1964?

Mr. Freeth: It is impossible until all the implications of the changed defence programme resulting from the Nassau Agreement have been worked out to say how many men or women or what categories will have to be redundant, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall inform the staff as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Emery: Will my hon. Friend revert to the last part of his original Answer to me and press a little more for this extra expenditure? If we are running down the establishment, cannot the balance of the money be used for peaceful uses, and the improvement of peaceful uses of atomic energy as well as the defence of this country which is equally as important? Do not let anyone misunderstand that. The two should go in balance.

Mr. Freeth: I am very glad that my hon. Friend is supporting the very substantial programme on the civil side of the Atomic Energy Authority. He will have noticed that only recently we have authorised the Authority to build a steam generating heavy water reactor at Winfrith Heath. It is essential to keep the programme in balance, but it has to fit in with all the other scientific and industrial policies of the Government and cannot be considered in isolation.

Food Research Institute

Mr. Peter Emery: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress is being made with the new Food Research Institute.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Preliminary plans for the new buildings are being prepared. Detailed planning will begin soon when the overall plan for university buildings on the site at Norwich has been agreed.

Mr. Emery: I thank my hon. Friend.

National Chemical Laboratory

Mr. Bourne-Arton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what plans he has for the removal of the National Chemical Laboratory from Teddington to a site where expansion will be possible.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what plans he


has for the removal of the National Chemical Laboratory from Teddington to a site in a scheduled area such as Merseyside, North-East England, or Scotland.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The building requirements of all establishments of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for the next five years, including those of the National Chemical Laboratory, are at present under consideration. It is not yet possible to say what development of the N.C.L. will take place or whether a move to a new site will be possible. If a move to a new site can be fitted into the programme, the claims of areas of high unemployment will be considered.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he, when considering new sites, give special consideration to the advantages of moving this laboratory to the North-East, where it could not only operate more efficiently but where its presence would help to stimulate scientific research and technological development in the area?

Mr. Freeth: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that there are extremely distinguished faculties of chemistry at Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow with whom National Chemical Laboratory personnel could cross-fertilise ideas?

Mr. Freeth: I take the point made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If this laboratory has to be moved from Teddington, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that plenty of notice will be given to the staff and also some help over removal expenses?

Mr. Freeth: On the first part of that supplementary question, of course we shall give the maximum notice possible and if a new building has to be erected the notice will be substantial in length. I shall certainly look at my hon. Friend's second suggestion.

Government Chemist (Laboratory)

Mr. Bourne-Arton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science when the laboratory of the Government Chemist

will move from the Strand to the South Bank; and why it is not being moved out of central London.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The move is planned to take place in September this year. To move the laboratory out of central London would slow up communication through the railway system with the nation's ports and disrupt the advisory service to Government Departments, particularly the Customs and Excise Department. As much as possible of the day-to-day routine work is dispersed to stations at Bristol, Glasgow or Liverpool.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Does not my hon. Friend consider that this high official could carry out his duties far better in the clean air and open space of the North-East than on the South Bank?

Mr. Freeth: I do think that it is essential for the main body of the laboratory of the Government Chemist to be near both Customs and Excise and the ports of London. No less than 240,000 samples originate each year from Customs and Excise and about one-quarter of this number is delivered direct from the London docks by Customs van. I am not sure that, if we moved the laboratory out of central London, we would in fact either expedite analyses or cut costs.

Road Research Laboratory

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science why the new laboratories now being built for the Road Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are below the standards commonly accepted for Government laboratories.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: There are no generally applicable standards laid down for the construction of Government laboratories, which have to be designed individually to suit their respective purposes. I am satisfied that the proposed new Road Research Laboratory will provide adequate accommodation for the effective conduct of road research.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the considerable criticism of this project which has appeared in the Press, will my hon. Friend give publicity to that Answer?

Mr. Freeth: I have read it in the House.

Mr. Crossman: The Parliamentary Secretary received a formal deputation from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants which did not express itself as satisfied. Is he aware, for instance, that the Institution suggested to him that 40 per cent. of the office space was below the minimum accommodation in Government offices, that 140 laboratories had ceilings so low that they could not have equipment put in them, that there was no room for a computer and no room for a conference hall? Is that the Parliamentary Secretary's usual standard for a new research laboratory?

Mr. Freeth: In fact the Institution wrote to my noble Friend. It did not see him. With regard to the three points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I do not accept that a worker who works part of his time in a laboratory and part writing up his notes in an office requires the same standards of office accommodation as an executive officer in Whitehall. With regard to the computer, the present computer we intend to keep at the Radio Research Station but when the Road Research Laboratory gets its own computer there will have to be additional housing. I admit that at the moment a conference hall is not included within the plans, but these are not the final plans for the complete laboratory as it will be at the end of the day.

Mr. Crossman: Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary aright that, if one spends half one's day in a place, the accommodation should be only half as adequate?

Mr. Freeth: No. If the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer he will see that he did not get the point.

Industrial Research Associations' Staff (Visits Abroad)

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many members of the staffs of industrial research associations have paid official visits abroad during each of the last three years.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I do not have this information since the industrial research associations which are grant-aided by the. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are independent co-operative bodies and such staff matters are within the competence of their own councils.

Mr. Alba: When considering the financing of such associations, will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that they have a very high reputation abroad, that in fact many of the senior members of their staff do go abroad and participate in conferences and give advice, and that they in fact are doing a very useful job for British industry? This is one of the reasons why they need more money.

Mr. Freeth: I do not think that the Government should give particular grants to research associations to be used for this purpose only. I think that out of the general grant we must leave it to the research associations to decide upon the amount of travelling which they wish their members to undertake. This will differ greatly from research association to research association. My noble Friend and I are very keen indeed that their names should stand high in the scientific councils of the world.

Mr. Albu: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that in fact it does stand very high indeed and that they are performing a very useful function in doing this?

Mr. Freeth: I rejoice that the hon. Member and I are agreed on these two points.

Biologists

Mr. Boyden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if, following the evidence given by the Royal Society, as set out in Command Paper No. 1920, regarding the accuracy of the estimates made in the 1959 Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower regarding the numbers of biologists being trained, he will take steps to reassess the need for biologists.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: For many years the Committee on Scientific Manpower and the Advisory Council have drawn attention to shortages of biologists of adequate quality, and of those with a sufficient basic training in physics or chemistry, or with special qualifications, existing at the same time as other biologists, with no more than a general training, were finding difficulty in obtaining suitable employment. This assessment—which the Council confirms in paragraph 31 of its latest Report, Cmnd. 1920—and in which my noble Friend concurs, is not inconsistent with the Royal Society's evidence annexed to that Report.

Mr. Boyden: Is it not an extraordinary fact that both the Willink Committee made a mistake as to the shortage of doctors and that, for all the Parliamentary Secretary's words, the Royal Society thinks that the Advisory Council on Scientific Research made a mistake as to the number of biologists? Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that these committees are adequately staffed with statisticians and research workers so that the material they require to consider is adequately presented to them?

Mr. Freeth: I think, quite honestly, that this belief that the Committee on Scientific Manpower has been totally wrong is based on error. Throughout the last 12 years both committees have constantly mentioned the fact that general biologists are finding difficulty in getting employment, and therefore it can be said that we have enough general biologists. However, at the same time there is a definite lack of biologists of adequate quality with a sufficient basic training in physics and chemistry.

Encephalitis

Mr. Buck: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what advantage has been taken of the recent outbreak of encephalitis lethargica, or sleeping sickness, in the Colchester area to assist research into the causes and treatment of this disease.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I understand that detailed investigations of the recent cases of illness in the Colchester area have not confirmed the earlier suspicion that these were due to encephalitis lethargica.

Mr. Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that Answer. I trust that he is not trying to dazzle me by science in his reply. Does he not agree that in fact it is certainly a virus disease akin to encephalitis lethargica? Should not the opportunity be taken to do research into this disease, whatever it be called, since it killed one man and put the lives of two young girls in grave jeopardy?

Mr. Freeth: I agree with my hon. Friend that the illnesses at Colchester were very sad and very horrible, but I am advised that no evidence of virological infection was found either in the one fatal case or in the two suspected cases and, furthermore, that microscopic

examination of specimens of brain tissue taken from the man who died failed to confirm the diagnosis of encephalitis lethargica suggested at an earlier stage.

Mr. Buck: Can my hon. Friend explain why there was an original diagnosis of encephalitis lethargica substantiated by many medical people?

Mr. Freeth: It is possible for anyone to be mistaken, particularly when dealing with the complicated systems of what I am grateful to say is a very rare disease.

Mr. Buck: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the results of research into encephalitis being undertaken in the United States of America are made available, by way of international agreement or otherwise, to research organisations and the medical profession in this country.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The results of medical research are normally published in the scientific jnurnals and scientists working in different countries but, in the same fields maintain close contact with each other. I am not aware of any need to supplement this by special arrangements relating to research into encephalitis.

Mr. Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that about 186,000 dollars have recently been made available by the Florida Board of Health for investigation into this and similar diseases? Does he not think that it would be appropriate to take special steps to see that the result of this research is made readily available in this country?

Mr. Freeth: We must remember that there are two very distinct diseases which come under the general heading of encephalitis. The first is the Japanese type B which occurs in Japan, Russia and Australia, and the other is the St. Louis type, on which work was done in the United States, and of which I do not think we have had any in this country for something like 50 years.

Mr. Hirst: Does not my hon. Friend agree that research—particularly medical research—should as far as possible have no frontiers? Is it not worth while making representations, if there are these evidences, so that, as far as possible, we may play our full part in spreading the creed that science should be universal?

Mr. Freeth: Yes, but all scientific research is published sooner or later. Close contact is maintained between scientists. All I am saying is that I have not had brought to my attention by scientists the need for any new organisation to help them the better to know what their colleagues are doing.

Pesticides

Mr. Darling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether the research work undertaken by his Department, and by other bodies which report to him, into the effect of pesticides and other toxic sprays on animals, birds and insects, also includes research into the probable cumulative effects of chemicals which remain toxic for long periods in the soil.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Darling: In which case can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us where the research is being conducted, by whom, and where the result can be obtained, because there is a great deal of anxiety among scientists and people generally about the possible cumulative effects of these sprays remaining in the soil? Up to now no one has given any information at all about the research being undertaken in this matter.

Mr. Freeth: The relevant research is being done at the Agricultural Research Council's National Vegetable Research Station in collaboration with the Plant Pathology Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture; by the Nature Conservancy in collaboration with the Government Chemists' Laboratory and at the Weed Research Organisation and Rothamsted Experimental Station. Accounts of the work appear in the Annual Reports of these bodies.

Mr. Edelman: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the serious charges made by the distinguished scientific writer, Rachel Carson, in her book "Silent Spring", in which she states that many of the pesticides commonly used are carcinogenic? In those circumstances would he refer this important matter not merely to the Agricultural Research Council but to the Medical Research Council?

Mr. Freeth: On the whole question of pesticides and co-ordinating research

we have the Fraser Committee set up especially for this purpose, and I understand that it is doing an excellent job of work.

Sir G. Nicholson: Has my hon. Friend read "Silent Spring", by Rachel Carson and, if not, will he read it and also make it compulsory reading for his Department? Is he aware that in that book a totally new line is taken on this subject and that his Answer is just not good enough?

Mr. Freeth: I and all the senior members of the Department have read this book, but a large part of it refers to practice and experience in America and is not applicable to experience in this country.

AIR POLLUTION

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are concerned with the various aspects of the problem of air pollution; and what steps he will now take to co-ordinate and accelerate the work of their respective Departments and to implement a policy to reduce the danger, dirt and waste caused by the high pollution in urban areas.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The main responsibility rests with the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Minister for Science, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Power are also concerned. All are pressing on with the vital work of reducing air pollution and I have no evidence that the present arrangements for co-ordination need review.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Prime Minister say what is being done to speed up the implementation of the Clean Air Act, particularly in the North? Can he further say what is being done to accelerate research on the elimination of carbon-monoxide from petrol engines and of sulphur dioxide from industrial and domestic plant and also from diesel engines?

The Prime Minister: These are all separate points, and I do not want to take too long over my reply. Regarding the first, if the hon. Member will read


Command Paper "Smog Control, England and Wales, 1962–66" he will get the information there. Regarding diesel and petrol, these are questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and perhaps the hon. Member will put a Question specifically to him.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the fact that it is very difficult to secure the proper implementation of the Clean Air Act so long as smokeless fuel is either not available or is too expensive for old-age pensioners to buy?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows, the Act is applied in many cities. I am told that the supply of fuel generally is satisfactory. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consult President Kennedy with a view to securing Western acceptance in the test ban talks of the Russian proposal for three on-site inspections a year plus three sealed returnable seismic stations on their territory, and so enable a test ban treaty to be concluded.

The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 14th March, I agree that the reversion of the Soviet Government to their position of 1960 by the acceptance of the principle of on-site inspection is an important step forward and I am very hopeful that it may ultimately lead to a solution. I am in freqaent communication with President Kennedy on important matters which concern our two Governments.

Mrs. Castle: The Prime Minister has not answered my Question. Is it not a fact that the West said, and have said for a long time, that if only the Russians would accept the principle of inspection a test ban treaty could be concluded? Is it not a fact that the issues are now purely political and not technical? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Russians were now to split the difference between their offer of three and the West's demand of seven—and accept five tests—he would now, in the

name of the British people, jump to accept that in order to get a treaty concluded?

The Prime Minister: The important thing is to get agreement between all the Powers concerned—and I take note of the hon. Lady's suggestion—but at the moment the original American wish was for twenty which was reduced to seven. Then the Russians have gone back to the position they had taken—but which they afterwards abandoned—and accepted the principle, and offered three. There is, in addition to the number—which is, I hope, a matter which will be able to be settled—the question of the conditions under which these inspections would take place and, of course, negotiation will be necessary on all these points.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the acceptance of the principle which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is a big step forward, will he now say whether the West have made clear what is their limiting figure, what figure they regard as the absolute minimum, and whether the British Government are in support of the figure stated by the United States? Will he also say how seriously he regards the other problem—the question of the circumstances in which inspections would take place?

The Prime Minister: On the second part of that supplementary question, it is absolutely vital because if the inspections are not effective they have no purpose. The present position the Russian Government have taken is that they are not prepared to discuss the question of the conditions of inspection until the question of the number has been settled. I am hopeful that it will be possible to make progress, but I do not think that progress will be made by entering into some kind of public auction on this question. I think that, in the end, we will have to try to reach it by agreement.

FOREIGN DECORATIONS

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister what are the difficulties which make it impossible for him to approve a change in the regulations governing the wearing by Her Majesty's subjects of decorations awarded to them by foreign States.

The Prime Minister: To allow foreign decorations to be worn more freely than is at present customary could lead to the virtual abolition of the existing distinction, which seems right and proper, between restricted and unrestricted wearing of decorations. Moreover, amendment would entail seeking similar alterations in the Commonwealth Order Regulations.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: As these difficulties have been overcome by practically all foreign countries, would not my right hon. Friend look again at this problem, in view of the resentment caused among foreign Governments that their decorations, though they have been properly categorised by Her Majesty's Government as being fit to be accepted, are not fit to be worn?

The Prime Minister: There has always been this difference between the restricted and the unrestricted, and it goes back to the long tradition of this country to be rather more careful in the distribution and use of these foreign decorations. But I find it very difficult to conduct this exchange with my hon. Friend by Question and Answer. If he would be good enough to see me, I will try to collect the experts. I cannot claim to be an expert on this rather complicated question of protocol.

Miss Lee: Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be better manners, and more in keeping with contemporary values, if we were just a little less stuffy in our attitude to all these regulations, bearing in mind not only decorations but clothes generally? It does not add to the dignity of this country, or to its reputations for good manners in regard to protocol, to insist, for instance, on people wearing polar dinner clothes in the heat of Australia.

The Prime Minister: Clothes do not have anything to do with decorations.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Although I have nothing at all to do with the Question on the Order Paper, in accordance with the custom of the House I must declare a slight personal interest. Is it not manifestly absurd that citizens of this country who have been honoured by foreign States should be prevented, except in the most absurd circumstances, from wearing those decorations? Should not this archaic and feudal prevention of a pride natural in those people be brought to an end?

The Prime Minister: As I say, it is rather a complicated question. I am prepared to look at it again, but it is one on which agreement has been reached, and it would be necessary to get all the Commonwealth countries to agree to a change.

MINISTERS AND PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES (SALARIES)

Mr. Berkeley: asked the Prime Minister (1) what was the salary of a Cabinet Minister in 1938; and to what figure his present salary would have to be amended to take account of the increase in the index of retail prices since that date;
(2) what was the salary of a Parliamentary Secretary in 1938; and to what figure his present salary would have to be amended to take account of the increase in the index of retail prices since that date.

The Prime Minister: In 1938, senior Ministers were paid £5,000 and Parliamentary Secretaries £1,500. The retail price index only started in 1947, but taking into account the rise in consumer prices since 1938, the corresponding figures now would be £15,300 and £4,590 respectively. Of course, if questions of taxation were to be taken into account, very much larger figures would be involved.

Mr. Berkeley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that these figures reveal that his colleagues are grotesquely underpaid in the light of the consistently successful way in which they carry out their duties?

The Prime Minister: The question of additional payment is, of course, mentioned from time to time and has been dealt with, and may be dealt with again. Meanwhile, we must be content with the approbation of our fellow countrymen.

Mr. Shinwell: Apart from Ministers receiving reasonable salaries, did not the Prime Minister say the other day that he hoped they would be judged by results? That being so, would it not be desirable in the case of some of his colleagues, in view of the lavish promises they have made which remain unfulfilled, to pay them by results?

The Prime Minister: I think that had that applied during the last Labour Administration there would have been very little pay.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in relation to Cabinet Ministers' salaries, the right year of comparison is not 1938 but 1831, when their present remuneration was fixed by way of reduction as a temporary economy measure? Does not my right hon. Friend think that the particular circumstances of 1831 which caused that reduction have now passed away?

The Prime Minister: These are relevant matters, of course, but I must point out that if my hon. Friend is thinking that we should try to aim at the same net receipts, the gross sums would rise considerably, because this is the result —[An HON. MEMBER: "Of inflation."]—of the taxation system. It has nothing to do with inflation. The Question is connected with retail prices, but if net receipts were the consideration there would be very large, almost astronomical, figures, and that is an important fact in the modern conditions of life.

SURFACE SHIPS (POLARIS MISSILES)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the President of the United States of America on the proposal to add surface ships armed with Polaris missiles to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force.

The Prime Minister: I am in frequent touch with the President of the United States t but it is not customary to reveal what passes in these exchanges.

Mr. Rankin: Then is the Prime Minister telling us that he has had no report of the visit of President Kennedy's representative, Mr. Livingston Merchant, to Western Europe? Is he aware that Mr. Merchant's visit has been received with great satisfaction in America, because one achievement has been that Western Germany has decided to take a substantial financial share in the proposed surface fleet equipped with Polaris missiles? If that be the case, does it not cut across the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too

long."]—of Article 6—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—of the Nassau agreement?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. When any particular plan is worked out it will be put before N.A.T.O. for its consideration. The broad principles were laid down in the Nassau Agreement and debated in this House. When any legal question arises, it will no doubt he considered then.

Mr. Healey: But is it not the case that the British and German Defence Ministers yesterday signed a communiqué saying that they had agreed in principle to contribute to this deterrent? Does not the Prime Minister owe the House and the country the duty to give more details of this most important matter? Is it not the case that we are now committed to spending £400 million on Polaris, £400 million on the T.S.R. system, £200 million on keeping the V-bombers going, and now another £200 million on a multilateral N.A.T.O. deterrent without any political or strategic explanation being given? Will the Prime Minister lay a White Paper, so that the House and the country can judge the wisdom of the Government's policy?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. At this stage, it would be quite wrong to do so. The matter has been discussed in principle in our defence debates, and discussions and negotiations are being carried on which will take the N.A.T.O. Council a long time. If at some point it is thought right to have a debate, or if it is possible to have a debate, we will consider it, but it is not, at this time, possible.

Commander Courtney: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the event of a future war, this proposal, if implemented, would give a maritime Power a cast-iron excuse for embarking at the outset on an unrestricted submarine campaign?

The Prime Minister: Of course, many considerations have to be gone into. All that has happened so far is that the broad principles were agreed at Nassau, and we shall stick to what we undertook. That is a question for consideration by all the countries concerned, and possibly, after the N.A.T.O. conference in Ottawa, which is meeting generally to deal with another aspect in the first instance, this wider issue may be considered.

Mr. H. Wilson: But is not the Prime Minister aware that there is very widespread feeling in all parts of the House, because large sums—very large sums, indeed—are being voted by the House for defence without any information being given to the House? We had nothing in the White Paper or in the defence debate about some items, and even larger commitments seem to be in process of being entered into. Is it not right that at the earliest possible moment after the Government have come to a decision on policy, the House should be informed in fullest measure?

The Prime Minister: These are merely preliminary discussions going on at present among various N.A.T.O. members.

POST OFFICE (CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND TARIFF INCREASES)

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
In the coming year the Post Office will invest £156 million capital in its ever growing services. This compares with capital expenditure of £105 million in 1960–61 and £133 million in the current year. This increase in investment is essential for improved public services. It will also help to maintain a high level of employment in industries which supply the Post Office. Several of these are in the development districts.
Post Office profits, however, which help to finance its capital investment, fell from £24 million in 1960–61 to £14 million in 1961–62. This year they are estimated at £9 million.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that Post Office borrowings from the Treasury shall be increased from £35 million in this financial year to double that amount in 1963–64. It is, however, undesirable that the whole of the additional capital should be found by borrowing and I therefore propose to alter certain charges so as to add £14 million net to Post Office revenue in a full year. This represents an increase of only 2·6 per cent. on present income.
Before I come to the tariff increases, I should like to refer to one particular relaxation. It is widely felt that the limitation of an S.T.D. local call to 3 minutes for 2d. is too restrictive. I have, therefore, decided to increase to 6 minutes the time per unit charge during the day period for ordinary subscribers without making any change in the unit charge.

The principal increases in tariffs are:

Posts:

Charges for inland parcels of between 6 lb. and 15 lb. will be increased by between 3d. and Is, a parcel. Charges for overseas parcels, which vary according to destination, will be raised to bring them more into line with costs. There will be no increase in the charges for inland parcels weighing 6 lb. or less.

The charge for registration will be increased by 3d. I hope that this will divert some business to the cheaper Recorded Delivery Service, the growth of which I am anxious to encourage.

Charges for overseas printed papers, which are incurring a heavy loss, will also be increased.

The rates for inland money orders and cash on delivery charges will be increased by 1s. at each step. This service also loses heavily.

Telecommunications:

The time per unit charge on certain S.T.D. trunk calls will be reduced by 17 or 25 per cent.

The charge for certain non-S.T.D. trunk calls will be increased by amounts varying from 3d. to 9d. for each 3 minutes.

The charge for inland telegrams will be increased from 3d. to 5d. a word. The charges for certain overseas telegrams will also be increased. Most of these changes will operate from 29th April.

Full details will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT and for the convenience of hon. Members copies are now available in the Vote Office.

I am also presenting today a White Paper dealing with Post Office Prospects for 1963–64. There will be an opportunity to debate this White Paper in the


debate on the Post Office on Monday next, when I hope to refer to plans for stimulating the use of Post Office services.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this is quite a disturbing statement in many respects and is quite contrary to what many of us expected that he would be making from the Dispatch Box at this time of the year? It looks like an advance little Budget of his own. We shall, of course, want to weigh up very carefully the pros and cons. Although the right hon. Gentleman has referred to certain charges which are coming down, there are compensating increases in other directions which he has not referred to very much.
I should like to say that, personally, I note with satisfaction the proposed increase in capital investment. We on this side of the House consider that this is essential if the postal and telecommunications services are adequately to meet the requirements of an expanding economy. But is the right hon. Gentleman not in danger of imposing too heavy a burden on the administration and on Post Office customers by his decision to try to find a still higher proportion of capital investment from his own day-to-day Post Office resources? After all, the Post Office is in large part a public service and quite a number of the services cannot possibly, by their very nature, pay dividends. Therefore, this has to he taken into consideration.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman further whether the increased tariffs on parcels, telegrams and telephones do not, in fact, defeat the very object which he has in mind, that is, to popularise the services to which I have referred? Is he, therefore, not in danger—I ask this quite seriously—of pricing some of these very valuable services completely out of the market? Would it not be a better proposition for him to expand the services instead of contracting them in the form that he has suggested in his statement?
Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the seriousness of this statement, and the fact that we are to have a debate on Monday on the whole subject of the Post Office's prospects and its work, whether he will consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to giving us extra time for the debate on Monday so

that we can deal with many of the important aspects which have been disclosed in his statement?

Mr. Bevins: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means when he refers to the seriousness of my statement. I should have thought that a situtaion in which the Post Office is increasing prices by only 2·6 per cent. overall when our capital investment is rising by 25 per cent. is not too bad. The fact is that the Post Office's proportion of capital financing in 1963–64 at 55 per cent. will be a lower proportion, and not a higher proportion, than it has been during the last two years.
On the question of the increase in prices, it is perfectly true that the tendency in certain spheres will be to reduce public demand, but that is not true all along the line. For example, in the case of the increase in the registration fee we hope to divert business from registration, which is losing money, to the Recorded Delivery Service which is making money.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we really are rather tired of these consistent and persistent increases in Post Office charges? The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Williams) is quite right when he says that they are likely to price some of these services out of the market and that the increase in prices of overseas parcels, telegrams and overseas papers is quite contrary to what was thought to be the essential need of the Government to encourage the export trade.

Mr. Bevins: Whatever my hon. Friend may say, I think that it is a fair comment to make that the increase in prices is not only lower than for any other nationalised industry, but for most private enterprise as well.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a few more details of how this programme of investment will assist the development districts, and particularly whether it is likely to benefit Scotland?
Secondly, can he say whether he has estimated the effect on industry of these increased charges, and, thirdly, will be bear in mind that increased postal charges, in particular, and some of the increases in telegram charges will bear particularly


heavily upon the remote areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland and on districts that we want to help because their unemployment figures are high?

Mr. Bevins: I do not altogether share the right hon. Member's view that increased postal charges will hit people in rural areas. There are no important changes on the postal side affecting the ordinary man in the street. There is no increase in the stamp or in the rate for the ordinary small parcel. The point about employment in the development districts is certainly important. Many of our largest suppliers have plants and factories in the North-East and on Merseyside and, of course, quite a substantial proportion of postal equipment is purchased from firms which operate in Scotland.

Mr. Vane: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the increased charges on the parcel post service will be matched by improvements in the service? Between the north of England and London the parcel post nowadays takes four, five or six days. This is no encouragement to anyone who wants to set up or develop industries in the north of England at a time when the provision of employment is so important.

Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the parcels service is not as good at is ought to be, but that is by no means wholly the responsibility of the Post Office. We are at present conducting a road service experiment in East Anglia which I am confident will be successful. If it is, our intention is to apply it more extensively over the country.

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the whole of this £156 million and the increase in capital investment relates purely to Post Office services to the community? How much is for defence purposes, if any, and how much for television, both I.T.A. and B.B.C.? What does the right hon. Gentleman expect the effect to be of his increase in telegram charges? How much will he save by cutting down the use of this service? Finally, were these proposals discussed by the right hon. Gentleman with the Central Advisory Committee, which last met about two years ago?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. These changes have not been discussed with the Central Advisory Committee. The telegram service, as the hon. Member knows, is incurring a loss of about £3 million, and has been incurring it for some years. Quite clearly, it is uneconomic and we ought to do something to put it right.
As for increased capital expenditure, the amounts which refer either to defence or to television are wholly infinitessimal. The lion's share of that £156 million will be devoted to the expansion of the telephone service.

Mr. F. Harris: My right hon. Friend has endeavoured to justify a very unsatisfactory increase in charges by saying that Post Office profitability has fallen from £24 million to £14 million and is estimated to fall this year to £9 million. Can he explain why there have been these dramatic reductions in profitability?

Mr. Bevins: On the income side, it is due to the slower expansion of business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Not the decline of business, but a smaller rate of advance, and, of course, a substantial decline in pools traffic owing to the development of certain other forms of gambling. On the expenditure side it is largely due to pay awards which for 1962–63 amount to £21 million.

Mr. W. R. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman expressed some surprise that I thought his statement was disturbing. I should have thought that the comment made by his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) was—

Mr. Speaker: Could we not confine ourselves to questions on the statement, because otherwise we take so long?

Mr. Williams: Very good, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not disturbing that the profits of the Post Office have come down progressively from £24 million to £9 million? Secondly, has the Postmaster-General not failed to "come clean" in his statement about the telegraph service? Not only is the charge per word going up from 3d. to 5d., but the minimum charge for telegrams will now be 5s. If that is not pricing it out of the reach of ordinary men and women, I do not know what is.

Mr. Bevins: I thought that I had largely answered the first point, in reply


to my hon.Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), when I said that business had expanded less satisfactorily during the last few years than previously, and I had mentioned the great weight of the increased pay awards in 1962–63.
As for telegrams, the fact is that at present a person who sends a telegram

POST OFFICE TARIFFS


PROPOSED CHARGES


(Except where shown otherwise, new charges will take effect from 29th April, 1963)


I.—TELEPHONE SERVICES


1. SUBSCRIBERS' LOCAL CALLS
Present
Proposed


STD: Time allowed for each 2d. charge unit:




 Full rate (6.0 a.m. to 6.0 p.m. Monday-Saturday)
3 mins.
6 mins.


Cheap rate (6.0 p.m. to 6.0 a.m. Monday-Saturday and all day Sunday)
12 mins.
Unchanged


2. SUBSCRIBERS'TRUNK CALLS: INLAND




STD: Time allowed for each 2d. charge unit:




Full rate: Up to 35 miles
30 secs.
Unchanged


From 35 to 50 miles
20 secs.
15 secs.


Over 50 miles
12 secs.
10 secs.


Cheap rate: Up to 35 miles
45 secs.
Unchanged


From 35 to 50 miles
30 secs.
22½ secs.


Over 50 miles
18 secs.
15 secs.


(b) Non-STD: Charge for 3 minutes:




Full rate: Up to 35 miles
1s. 0d.
Unchanged


From 35 to 50 miles
1s. 9d.
2s. 0d.


From 50 to 75 miles
2s. 3d.
3s. 0d.


From 75 to 125 miles
3s. 0d.
3s. 6d.


Over 125 miles
3s. 6d.
4s. 0d.


Cheap rate: Up to 35 miles
9d.
Unchanged


From 35 to 50 miles
1s. 3d.


From 50 to 75 miles
1s. 6d.
2s. 0d.


Over 75 miles
2s. 0d.
2s. 3d.


3. SUBSCRIBERS' TRUNK CALLS: TO IRISH REPUBLIC




(a) From Great Britain, Channel Islands and Isle of Man




Charge for 3 minutes:




Full rate: From 50 to 75 miles
4s. 6d.
5s. 3d.


From 75 to 125 miles
5s. 3d.
5s. 9d.


From 125 to 200 miles
6s. 0d.
6s. 3d.


From 200 to 300 miles
6s. 9d.
Unchanged


Over 300 miles
7s. 6d.
6s. 9d.


Cheap rate: From 50 to 75 miles
2s. 3d.
3s. 6d.


From 75 to 125 miles
2s. 9d.
3s. 9d.


Over 125 miles
3s. 3d.
3s. 9d.


(b) From Northern Ireland




Charge for 3 minutes:




Full rate: Up to 35 miles
1s. 0d.
Unchanged


From 35 to 50 miles
2s. 3d.
2s. 0d.


From 50 to 75 miles
3s. 0d.
Unchanged


From 75 to 125 miles
3s. 9d.
4s. 0d.


From 125 to 200 miles
4s. 6d.
4s. 0d.


From 200 to 300 miles
5s. 3d.
4s. 0d.


Over 300 miles
6s. 0d.
4s. 0d.


Cheap rate: Up to 35 miles
9d.
Unchanged


From 35 to 50 miles
1s. 3d.


From 50 to 75 miles
1s. 6d.
2s. 0d.


Over 75 miles
2s. 0d.
2s. 3d.


4. CALL OFFICE TRUNK CALLS: INLAND




(a) STD: Time allowed for each 3d. charge unit:




Full rate
As in 2 (a) above


Cheap rate



(b) Non-STD: Charge for 3 minutes:




Full rate
As in 2 (b) above plus 3d. for the first 3 minutes


Cheap rate

is paying only 50 per cent. of the cost of the service.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are to debate this subject soon and if the speeches then are short probably everybody will get in.

The following are the details:

5. CALL OFFICE TRUNK CALLS: TO IRISH REPUBLIC
Present
Proposed


Charge for 3 minutes:




Full rate
As in 3 above plus 3d. for the first 3 minutes


Cheap rate




6. COINBOX SUBSCRIBERS' TRUNK CALLS: INLAND




(a) STD: Time allowed for each 2¾d. unit charged to subscriber:




Full rate
As in 2 (a) above



Cheap rate



(b) Non-STD: Charge for 3 minutes:




Full rate
As in 2 (b) above plus 2d. for the first 3 minutes



Cheap rate



7. COINBOX SUBSCRIBERS' TRUNK CALLS: TO IRISH REPUBLIC




Charge for 3 minutes:




Full rate
As in 3 above plus 2d. for the first 3 minutes



Cheap rate



8. SHIP-SHORE RADIOTELEPHONE CALLS




(to take effect from 1st July, 1963)




Charge (for 3 minutes) for calls made through: the medium (MF) or long range (HF) services with ships in Zone A
10s. 6d.
12s. 6d.


the short range (VHF) service
7s. 0d. or 9s. 0d. (according to the distance of the inland subscriber from the coast station)

Zone A at present covers the sea areas within about 250 miles of the coast station. Its limits are being adjusted so that the new charge will apply to calls to and from ships within about 300 miles of the coast station.

II.—TELEGRAPH SERVICES






Present
Proposed


9. INLAND TELEGRAMS







Ordinary telegrams
…
…
…
3s. 0d. for 12 words or less 3d. a word thereafter
5s. 0d. for 12 words or less 5d. a word thereafter


Overnight telegrams
…
…
…
1s. 6d. for 12 words or less 1½d. a word thereafter
2s. 6d. for 12 words or less 2½d. a word thereafter


Priority telegrams
…
…
…
Ordinary rate plus 1s. 0d. surcharge
Ordinary rate plus 2s. 0d. surcharge


Press telegrams:







Day
…
…
…
3s. 0d. for each 60 words
5s. 0d. for each 50 words


Night
…
…
…
3s. 0d. for each 80 words
5s. 0d. for each 65 words

For ordinary and press telegrams to the Irish Republic the surcharge of 6d. will be increased to 1s. 0d. There will also be increases in the charges for certain supplementary services.

10. OVERSEAS TELEGRAMS




Telegrams to Europe (and a few neighbouring countries)
Various
Increased by about 30 per cent. on average

III.—MAIL SERVICES


11. PARCELS
Present
Proposed





s.
d.






Inland and to Irish Republic*
Up to 21b.
…
2
0







3 lb.
…
2
3







4 lb.
…
2
6
Up to 6 lb. unchanged



5 lb.
…
2
9







6 lb.
…
3
0







7 lb.
…
3
3


s.
d.



8 1b.
…
3
6
Up to 8 lb.
…
3
6







10 lb.
…
4
0



11 lb.
…
3
9











12 lb.
…
4
6



15 lb.
…
4
0
15 lb.
…
5
0



18 lb.
…
5
9
Above 15 lb. unchanged






(max.) 22 lb.
…
6
6





12. PARCELS: OVERSEAS










(to take effect from 1st July, 1963)
Various
Increased by about 15 per cent. on average


* The maximum weight for parcels to the Irish Republic is 15 lb.

13. PRINTED PAPERS, ETC.: OVERSEAS (to take effect from 1st July, 1963)





Printed Papers and Samples
…
2d. for 2 oz.
2½d. for 2 oz.



…
1d. for each additional 2 oz.
1½d. for each additional 2 oz.


Commercial Papers
…
6d. (minimum charge) for 10 oz.
7d. (minimum charge) for 8 oz.



…
1d. for each additional 2 oz.
1½d. for each additional 2 oz.


Small Packets
…
10d. (minimum charge) for 10 oz.
1s. 0½d. (minimum charge) for 10 oz.



…
2d. for each additional 2 oz.
2½d. for each additional 2 oz.


Printed Papers (reduced rate)
…
1½d. for 2oz.
2d. for 2 oz.



…
1d. for each additional 2 oz.
1½d, for each additional 2 oz.


Printed Papers (bulk).
…
8½d. per 1b.
1s. 0½d. per 1b.


Canadian Magazine Post
…
1d. up to 6 oz..
As for printed papers (ordinary or reduced or bulk rate.)




1½d. up to 1½ 1b.




…
½d. each additional ½ 1b.

The minimum charges of 7d. for Commercial Papers and 1s. 0½d. for small packets will apply to air mail as well as to surface mail.

14. REGISTRATION FEE




Inland and to Irish Republic
1s. 6d. for compensation up to £20.
1s. 9d. for compensation up to £20.



then
then



1d. for each £20 up to £400
1d. for each £20 up to £400


15. REGISTRATION FEE




Overseas (to take effect from 1st July, 1963)
1s. 6d.
1s. 9d.

There will be a consequential increase of 3d. in the charges for all insured items sent overseas.

16. INLAND CASH ON DELIVERY PACKETS



Fees (additional to normal postage and registration charges).
1s. 2d. to 2s. 8d. (according 2s. 2d. to 3s. 8d. to the amount of the Trade Charge).

IV.—REMITTANCE SERVICES


17. INLAND MONEY ORDERS



Present
Proposed


Ordinary money orders







Poundage:







Up to £10
…
…
…
1s. 0d.
2s. 0d.


Up to £20
…
…
…
1s. 2d.
2s. 2d.


Up to £30
…
…
…
1s. 4d.
2s. 4d.


Up to £40
…
…
…
1s. 6d.
2s. 6d.


UP to £50
…
…
…
1s. 8d.
2s. 8d.

Telegraph Money Orders




Supplementary fee
6d.
—


Poundage
As for inland ordinary money order.
As for inland ordinary money order plus 6d.


Official part of telegram of advice
3s. 0d.
5s. 0d.


Words in any private message
3d. a word
5d. a word


Surcharge for telegraph money order to Irish Republic.
6d.
1s. 0d.

The charges for issue of a duplicate money order, for renewal of a void money order and for advice of payment of an overseas money order will also be increased.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

CRIMINAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION)

3.46 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compensate those injured by certain criminal offences against the person; to provide for their dependants and for the dependants of those killed by criminal acts; and for purposes connected therewith.
My proposed Bill in is terms almost identical with those of one which I introduced to the House in November, 1959, and of a Bill similarly introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) in November, 1960. We have returned to this matter again and again against the unhappy background that crimes of violence of many kinds have been increasing in recent years and that there has been a great deal of public discussion about the best way of dealing with offenders, but that, in our view, not enough public attention has been paid to the needs of the victims.
The purpose of the Bill is to make public provision for those who are injured by crimes of violence or for their dependants and for the dependants of those killed by murder, manslaughter, or in some other way. When these offences occur the victim is sometimes cared for by a private charity. Recently, close to my constituency, in the Borough of West Ham, there was a tragic incident in which two police officers were killed in the course of their duty. By public subscription a substantial sum was raised for their widows. But this usually happens only in cases which receive a great deal of publicity.
There are thousands of crimes of violence every year where little publicity is given to the offence and where the victim of the crime has little to fall back on except the opportunity to sue the criminal at common law. That opportunity is generally of little or no value. In many cases the criminal is not apprehended, and if he is apprehended he often has no means to pay damages. If he is sent to prison for a number of years he is even less likely to pay damages.
If I may quote an admittedly bad example, there was a case some years ago of a man who was set upon and beaten severely by two thugs. He was blinded

and injured in the head and in other parts of the body, permanently and seriously. He sued the criminals and was awarded £11,500 damages, but the criminals, serving gaol sentences, had no means to meet the award. Eventually, he took legal action to secure payment from them over a period and the court awarded him payment of £1 a month from the two men together. He would have had to live 442 years to collect the damages awarded by the court. That is an extreme case, but there are cases of people who are severely injured and who have no effective redress. Some of these people have been forced to live on National Assistance.
The case I put to the House is that public provision should be made for these people. There are two possible approaches to this problem. One is to have a system by which the injured party can sue the criminal or, if he is not apprehended, sue in court for damages and the court can award damages, the State paying the bill.
The other possible approach is the one contained in the proposed Bill, and that is that something equivalent to the Industrial Injuries Scheme—or another parallel might be the provision for war pensioners in the form of disability pensions and supplementary benefits—should be available to the victims. Or a scheme which was a combination of the two could be evolved. I am not wedded to a particular scheme. The one in the Bill which I presented originally was put in that form because it was the easiest way to bring it within the rules of order of the House governing the form of a Private Member's Bill.
As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South and myself have tried to bring Private Members' Bills before the House in recent years to deal with this matter, and we and other bon. Members have pursued it at Question Time. The Government appointed a working party to study it, as a result of which a White Paper was published in June, 1961, which contained a valuable analysis of the problems, considered the difficulties involved and drew attention to the various decisions which would have to be made about the nature of the scheme, and so on. But it did not give any substantial reason for supposing that a scheme could not be introduced at a


fairly early date. It contained no definition of the Government's intentions, and they have since said that they needed more time to think about it.
My submission is that the Government have had enough time to think about this matter. The White Paper was issued eighteen months ago. Since then, a number of people have studied the problem and have reported on it. A committee appointed by the Conservative Political Centre, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was the original chairman, produced a report pointing out that there was no fundamental obstacle to a scheme along the lines I am advocating. A committee under the chairmanship of Lord Longford which was appointed by "Justice" produced a most valuable report a few months ago. These reports confirm that there is no fundamental reason why a scheme should not be introduced at a fairly early date.
Of course, a number of decisions would have to be made. It would have to be decided to what extent the scheme should cover brawls within a family. It would have to be considered whether an argument between a husband and wife in which they knocked each other about should he included. It would have to be considered how we would cover, if at all, a case in which criminals, having committed a robbery, then argued about the division of the spoils and one injured another. It might be felt that that was not a proper case in which public funds should he used. But these are not very difficult decisions and they can be made. It is time that the Government outlined their policy on the subject.
I am offering the Government the opportunity to do something about this matter. I hope and believe that the House will give me leave to introduce the proposed Bill, but I am a little pessimistic about

what will happen to it if it is introduced. My challenge to the Government is that they should adopt it and assist its passage and move Amendments to meet their point of view on the various decisions which need to be made. The Government have been far too sluggish on this matter, as on many other matters, and the longer we delay the more people will be injured without their having the benefit of any system of compensation.
Public opinion supports the proposed Bill. I had ample evidence of this when I introduced a similar Measure over three years ago. No one has come out in fundamental opposition to its proposals. It would not cost a great deal of money. According to the White Paper, it would cost a little less or a little more than £1 million a year, according to the type of scheme adopted—approximately 6d. a year for every man, woman and child in this country. I do not think that any citizen would begrudge money spent in a cause of this kind. The reform which I am suggesting is simple and humane and should have been carried out some time ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Prentice, Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Jeger, Dr. Bray, Mr. Bradley, Mr. C. Johnson, and Mr. Probert.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION) BILL

Bill to compensate those injured by certain criminal offences against the person; to provide for their dependants and for the dependants of those killed by criminal acts; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th March, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1963–64; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1963–64; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1961–62

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63

Orders of the Day — CLASS V

VOTE 7. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SERVICES)

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,418,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in connection with sundry agricultural and food services including grants, grants in aid and certain subscriptions to international organisations.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VIII

VOTE 16. GRANTS FOR THE ARTS

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £355,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for grants in aid of certain institutions and bodies connected with the arts

Orders of the Day — CLASS IX

VOTE 4. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure on Houses of Parliament buildings.

Orders of the Day — CLASS III

VOTE 7. PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £135,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Prison Commissioners and of prisons, borstal institutions, detention and remand centres in England and Wales.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IV

VOTE 13. TRANSPORT (SHIPPING AND SPECIAL SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £342,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for miscellaneous services connected with shipping, seamen, inland transport and ports, including the repair of damage by flood and tempest and certain special and other services.

Orders of the Day — SHIPPING AND SPECIAL SERVICES

3.58 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I wish to ask the Committee to consider two items in the Supplementary Estimate which comes under this Vote. I have given the Parliamentary Secretary notice of the two points which I propose to raise—perhaps other hon. Members will want to raise other points—and I am sure that he will answer the questions which I ask and will give the Committee the information which it should have on these two points.
The first point concerns the Supplementary Estimate of £146,000 which falls to be paid because—and I quote the words of the Supplementary Estimate—
An increased proportion of the cost of clearance of the Canal"—
that is, the Suez Canal—
has been established for United Kingdom account.
This means that the country is being asked to pay a further and quite substantial sum as one of the results of the Suez folly of 1956.
Most hon. Members and most people had believed that the whole of this shameful, sordid and costly story was a thing of the past and had been relegated


to that part of British history about which the less said the better. But, apparently, that has not yet happened, and, in 1963, we still have to pay £146,000 for the clearance of the canal, which this country helped to block, or, rather, the blockage of which was caused by this country.

Commander Anthony Courtney: That is not true.

Mr. Strauss: It was caused by this country and others. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understand that the direct reason for the Supplementary Estimate is that it arises from an arrangement with the United Nations. To start with, there was a 3 per cent. Surcharge—

Mr. Paul Williams: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must try to keep the record on this matter correct. Britain did not block the canal. Whatever some may think about the political venture itself, the facts are evident that the canal was blocked by the Egyptians.

Mr. Strauss: I know, Sir William, that you would not allow us to pursue this matter, because it would be out of order. If, however, I may be allowed one sentence, had it not been for the action of the British and other Governments the canal would never have been blocked. I am sure that the hon. Member agrees with this.
To start with, there was an arrangement by which all ships passing through the canal paid a surcharge on dues of 3 per cent., the money to be devoted to the unblocking of the canal. Later, I understand, the arrangement was changed and the money was paid, instead of by the owners of the ships, by the Governments whose nationals owned the ships passing through the canal; the Governments were to pay the money to the United Nations. That agreement ended in 1960, but the financial burden to be sorted out was only finalised in 1961.
I am informed that difficulties have arisen about the division of the costs arising between the various countries concerned. In many instances, the ownership of the vessels has been difficult to trace. What now has happened is that the United Nations has said that the British Government are responsible for paying certain sums of money

as ships belonging to nationals of this country passed through the canal and, therefore, had to be assessed for the additional 3 per cent.
It is now a long time since the canal was blocked, and the original arrangement was made in 1958. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why there was no Estimate at an earlier stage showing that a certain amount was still due from the British Government to the United Nations on this account. This should have been clear at an earlier stage. Was no earlier Estimate made because either the Government had no idea that there would be any further charge, or was it because they were optimistic and hoped, on both political and financial grounds, that the last penny had been paid by this country for the consequences of their disastrous adventure in 1956? We want more information about this. It is right that the people should realise that they are still paying for the consequences of the Suez folly.
The other point which I wish to raise is the Supplementary Estimate for £250,000. This is a payment of £50,000 to each of five tenderers by way of contribution towards their costs of preparing tenders for a nuclear reactor. The Committee will remember that great interest was aroused in 1959 when the Government proceeded to invite tenders from a number of consortia for the construction of a ship of 65,000 tons with a nuclear reactor capable of developing 20,000 s.h.p. Later, having received those tenders, the Government decided not to proceed with them. There was grave disappointment in the engineering and shipping industries and it was expressed by many hon. Members, on both sides of the House.
The first question which naturally arises is whether it is really necessary to pay this compensation of £¼ million, a very substantial sum. Secondly, does it provide a precedent for the payment of compensation on future occasions to tenderers whose tenders are not accepted? Thirdly, why was not this expenditure foreseen? Did not the Government realise at the time that if they asked these firms, to produce tenders which would involve them in considerable expenditure, the firms might ask the Government to compensate them for all the work which they put in. Leading scientists and engineers devoted many


months of effort and ingenuity in working out a design for the ship which the Government, at that stage, apparently, considered building. Did not the Government realise that a claim would be submitted? If so, why did they not provide in their Estimates for the year a sum to cover that amount?
The Government appear to have acted in an extraordinary way. Their approach has been a fumbling and a wasteful one. When they asked for tenders for this ship they did not at that stage decide that the tenders to be submitted by the consortia must be for a vessel that was economically viable. That condition was never made.
What the Government wanted was tenders from the firms for the construction of a ship of this specification. The work of the companies was to see in what way and by what devices such a ship could be built. At the end of the day, however, the Government said that none of the ships was economically viable. They never asked the consortia to prepare tenders for a ship which was economically viable and, for reasons which they expressed only at that late stage, they rejected all the tenders.
The result has been to cause justifiable disappointment and resentment in certain sections of the shipping industry and in the nuclear reactor sector of the engineering industry. I want to know from the Government whether, at the time they invited the tenders, they expected to accept one and then to proceed with the construction of a ship, or whether at that stage they realised that they might not accept any of the tenders. In either case, did they not appreciate that the firms were being put to enormous expenditure and that a claim would he made for compensation for the time spent by the firms in preparing the tenders?
As I indicated, another consequence of this payment is that apparently a precedent has been set by the Government for paying compensation to tenderers when their tenders are not accepted if the work incurred by them is substantial. Does this mean that in future, when a tender is invited from a consortium for work such as this, or even for something entirely different, and the Government decide not to proceed with the project after the tenders

have been submitted, compensation will be paid to these firms? Certainly, the industry will be able to plead that the Government have set a precedent by compensating these firms very handsomely—50,000 each—for their wasted efforts.
I am bound to ask, too, whether the Government were right in asking for tenders in the first place. Did they act prematurely or possibly too late? Would it not have been better to have waited a little longer, having granted £3 million to the Atomic Energy Authority to work out a viable nuclear reactor, and then, on the information provided by the Authority, to have invited tenders at that stage, in which case the £250,000 would have been saved?
Should the Government have asked for this tendering to be done at an earlier stage? Other countries have proceeded experimentally towards the production of a nuclear-powered ship —the United States and the Soviet Union—and now Japan has decided to build a nuclear-powered survey ship.

Commander Courtney: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Russian and American nuclear-powered ships are economic.

Mr. Strauss: No. But apparently the Government did not ask the consortia to produce an economically viable ship. Presumably, they merely wanted work and research to be done with the intention of building a ship even if it was not economically viable. I question whether the timing was right. I am asking whether it might not have been Better—I do not say that it was—to have waited until the A.E.A. had done its research or to have asked for the tenders earlier, which might have produced information enabling the country to proceed faster and earlier with this development. I do not know the answers to these questions, but the timing may not have been correct. The fact that the tenders were later turned down and compensation paid in itself suggests, that the timing was wrong.
What have we got as a result of these tenders, all the work done on them and the £250,000 compensation? Have we any knowledge or information enabling us to proceed further and more quickly? For example, has this work established


the fact that the boiling water reactor is the only possible one for a merchant ship. That seems to be the view of mast authorities in the industry, although perhaps not all. I understand that the tenderers came to the conclusion that this type of reactor was the only possible one. If such a firm decision has been arrived at as a result of these tenders, then at least the project has been of some value.
Has the work on these tenders enabled the A.E.A. to come to the conclusion that either their I.B.R. proposal or the Belgian Vulcain type of reactor is best? If that is so, it may be some consolation. But are we sure that the same thing might not happen again, however? A new design will no doubt be worked out as a result of the final decision of the A.E.A. in September. At that stage, new tenders will he asked for the construction of a ship which will be economically viable. Again large sums will be spent on preparing those tenders. When they are submitted, is there any change that once more the Government will say, "Thank you for your work, but we are not proceeding further and will pay you compensation"?
The information we have on the development and the prospects of a nuclear-propelled ship is very meagre. This Committee and the public are very interested and should be given much more information. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to enlighten us today. It is the lack of information and hard facts which has caused so much uneasiness in the industry and confusion in some sections of it.
It is impossible for a layman in the conflict of opinion among the experts to say who is right. My inclination is to back the views of the A.E.A., where most of our best brains in this engineering science are located. But we should have more information about what has been learned as a result of these tenders. We should be told where we now stand and what the next step will be. The public is exceedingly interested in this problem.
The future Merchant Navy may he powered by nuclear energy, and whoever is first in the field will have an enormous advantage. If we are first, it will be an enormous advantage to our flagging shipbuilding industry. That

industry sorely needs a boost. Let us today have some indication of what is likely to happen following these abortive tenders.
Although I have been critical of the Government for their action in this matter, we on this side of the Committee are very strongly in favour of proceeding as quickly as is technically justifiable with the development of a suitable nuclear reactor for merchant ships. We feel that the Government have been far too slow. Nor do we dispute that the industries concerned may have a good case for asking the Government to pay them compensation for the abortive work which the Government asked them to do, but it is the Government who are responsible for the policy which led to that abortive work.
Our blame is not oil the companies who put forward the claim, but on the Government, who have caused a situation which, without further explanation, appears to be wholly unjustifiable. It appears to those of us who are laymen, and it has appeared, as we know, to many responsible people in the industry, that in the past Government policy has been characterised by changing moods of optimism, pessimism and indecision. We ask the Parliamentary Secretary to justify this substantial Supplementary Estimate and to assure us, if he can, that out of the wasted resources which it represents, the Government are now in a position to pursue a more resolute policy and that they now know where they are going.

4.20 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: It was with the greatest interest that I followed the remarks of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), with most of which I had generally the greatest sympathy. However, I do not agree with his view that Government policy in this matter is necessarily wrong. I refer, in particular, to Subhead J.
The figure of £250,000 is a small price to pay in what amounts to a fivefold research and development programme carried out for the Government at the Government's instigation by private industry. That figure has to be compared with the enormous outlay by the Central Electricity Generating Board, for example, of about £500 million. We are considering


a vital national interest, which is represented by the shipbuilding industry and the possibilities of nuclear propulsion, and we must not lose our sense of proportion. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were right, and I do not think that he is, the Government would be well advised to lay out this sum of money on research and development.
Surely it is right, in the present state of the development of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships for the Government, to go outside the Atomic Energy Authority to get the best possible experience of this new form of propulsion for merchant ships. One of the results of this expenditure of £250,000 may have been that the Government have seen fit on the advice of the Authority to discard certain types of reactor, perhaps the boiling water reactor. However, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in this Committee we do not have sufficient detailed technical information to reach our own conclusions. I can only ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to make a remark or two about that.
The difficulty which we are up against is the interaction of State enterprise, the Atomic Energy Authority, and private industry in achieving a common result for the good of the country. Here, at once, we get into not only political but technical difficulties. The Committee will be aware that this interaction has recently brought about various happenings. I am anxious about the safeguards in the new arrangement for private industry.
For example, is it a fact that by what might be called "ganging-up" in private industry, certain sections of nuclear development in private industry are being frozen out? Allegations have reached me, as they have reached other hon. Members, that that might be the case. I hope not, and I hope that we can have some reassurance. Secondly, are we sure, in the words of a Question put down to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science today, that the membership of the Padmore Committee and the working party which selected the Vulcain and I.B.R. reactors meet all the requirements and are we sure that the competence and the technical qualifications of these highly respectable gentlemen are sufficient to make the essential decision?
What I have in mind is the danger in this crisis, if one may call it such, in our nuclear propulsion affairs that we may take a wrong turning and might perhaps have our Comet I in nuclear propulsion. I say that because there is a marked difference of opinion between the Atomic Energy Authority and a section of marine engineers, revolving round the fact that in at least one of the two chosen reactors which come within the category there are certain working parts within the pressure vessel.
This is something which no marine engineer worthy of his salt could possibly accept. He could not accept having to go to sea for two years at a time, knowing that there were moving parts, in this case the circulating pump, subjected to certain unpleasant radiations which might affect them and in a position where he could not get at them to put them right if they broke down. I would like a reassurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the working party and the Padmore Committee contain marine engineers of sufficient experience to decide in the national interest.
This £250,000 is a very small sum for this work. The working party is on the right lines. I would welcome some reassurance on the subjects I have raised and I hope that more than the derisory sum of £3 million which has been allocated to marine nuclear research will be forthcoming in the very near future.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: It is about a year ago that hon. Members opposite, led by our former, lamented noble Friend, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, made a strong demand that before we voted any money to the Government for any projects in contemplation there should be a thoroughgoing investigation. We met yesterday to consider the expenditure of £244 million for projects associated with the Air Ministry, but there was hardly any criticism, except from hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and they were comparatively few.
The enthusiasm of a year ago has completely and absolutely evaporated. Where are the critics now? I exempt some hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) retains his faculty for criticism, and the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), who was previously


associated with the Admiralty, has a natural interest in the subject which we are now discussing.
We are about to vote very large sums of money related not to the whole of our transport system, but to a section of it, namely, shipping and shipbuilding. That includes the topic of the atomic energy reactor for underwater vessels. I think that it is justifiable to comment that one expected the Parliamentary Secretary at the beginning of our deliberations to acquaint hon. Members with the Government's general shipping policy.
After all, this is perhaps the only opportunity that we have of debating the Government's shipping policy. Now and again, like a bolt from the blue, we have a debate on shipping, but it is of a specific character, usually associated with the intransigence of the United States of America in maritime affairs. This is an opportunity to debate shipping policy, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary remains seated and waits for questions to be asked. And, of course, after they are asked, does anyone suppose that there will be a satisfactory response? Of course not. We had an example of this only yesterday, and I have no doubt that that example will be emulated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman this afternoon.
When the hon. and gallant Gentleman was appointed to this office I was disappointed, not because of his appointment —I pay him the highest respect—but because, like other hon. Members, some on this side of the Committee, I wanted the appointment of a first-class Minister of Shipping who would be responsible for dealing with shipping and shipbuilding. The Prime Minister frustrated our efforts and presented us with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who no doubt, has done his best, but shipping was in a shocking state before his appointment, and it is even worse now.
Yesterday, in another context, I said that if Ministers could not fufil their obligations they ought to be surcharged, or, at any rate, suffer a reduction in their salaries, and, of course, we could adopt that procedure this afternoon, though I have not the least expectation that at the end of our proceedings the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be left in the position of having to apply for National Assistance. He will receive his salary just the same.
Let us consider the Estimates and the Supplementary Estimate. Let us begin with the former. We are debating the expenditure of a vast sum of money, and we are entitled to ask what we are getting from it, apart from the hon. arid gallant Gentleman. Is there any improvement in the shipping position of the United Kingdom? Are we making any progress in shipbuilding development? What is the answer to those questions? The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be bound to reply that unfortunately we are making no progress.

The Chairman: I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Member, but so that no misunderstanding should develop, may I point out that it is the Supplementary Estimate that we are debating just now?

Mr. Shinwell: Sir William, are we to understand that we are never to be afforded an opportunity to discuss the Estimates? Are we to understand that only the Supplementary Estimate, which involves a comparatively small sum of money, can be debated, and that the vast sums which have been expended, or are about to be expended, and which relate to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department, are never to be debated? When are we to be afforded an opportunity to debate these matters?
These matters are of fundamental importance, and I was under the impression that, as we were debating the Estimates yesterday and not merely the Supplementary Estimate, we were entitled to debate these Estimates today. At any rate, I presume that I am entitled to ask questions about expenditure. Perhaps you will advise me on this point.

The Chairman: On the Supplementary Estimate by all means, but not on the main Estimates.

Mr. Shinwell: I am ready to be guided in this matter, and I am anxious that it should be on the record that we are permitted to debate expenditure of a comparatively small amount relating to the Supplementary Estimate, but that we are precluded from debating or even asking questions about the vast sums expended by the Government for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his right hon. Friend are responsible. I should like to put that on the record and to have the answer.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for allowing me to try to put these things clearly. That may be put down for debate on another day. What has been put down for debate today at the moment is this Supplementary Estimate, and we are now dealing with Class IV, Vote 13, and purely that.

Mr. Shinwell: Very well, Sir William. If I am precluded from debating the larger sums, at any rate I can ask questions about the smaller ones.

Mr. P. Williams: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shinwell: I am glad of that response, because it seems to fit in with the status of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary. I say that advisedly. I do not mean any offence.
I say it with respect, but what I mean is that we are now debating a comparatively small sum relating to two or three items of very little importance, or perhaps I should say not of vital importance, in relation to the functions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If we are to debate this trivia in finance, it seems to be related to the status of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I ask him whether, as regards the services included in the Supplementary Estimate, he will present us with some indication of the Government's policy in relation to these items?
In so far as the Supplementary Estimate items are related to the Government's shipping policy, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether any progress has resulted from his efforts, particularly in relation to conversations with the delegates of other maritime countries? This is a matter to which reference was made some time ago and on which we have had no information. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman furnish any information on those items?
I now say a word or two about the matter which has been discussed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney). I am inclined to agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend. I can understand my right hon. Friend's anxiety about spending money which is directed to private enterprise. That view is held strongly on this side of the Committee

unless the money is directed to definite beneficial aims.
The device to which my right hon. Friend referred is a new one. It is an experiment. No one can foretell what will result from it, but in a matter of this kind it seems well worth while the Government spending a comparatively small sum of money to induce those who are likely to engage in research, the subsequent development, and the final production of the article, to proceed with their experiments. After all, £50,000 to each of the tenderers does not seem to be a great amount of money. The only doubt that I have in my mind, and perhaps this was the doubt in my right hon. Friend's mind, is whether, at the end of the day, the results will be fruitful, and I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary must be in a position to reassure us on this point.
In the past we have suffered many disappointments in the defence sphere, and we are, in fact, discussing an aspect of defence although it has certain civil repercussions. We are discussing the possibility of the construction of merchant vessels of a nuclear design. We have suffered disappointments in connection with Skybolt, with Blue Streak, and with various ballistic missiles, and we ought to guard ourselves against suffering a disappointment in connection with this very important project. Apart from gaining some reassurance from the hon. and gallant Member, I do not feel that an expenditure of £250,000—especially when we are contemplating the expenditure of about £400 million on Polaris submarines —is a venture that we should impede. Therefore, I do not worry a great deal about it.
Nevertheless, I repeat what I said at the outset—although it is not related entirely to the Supplementary Estimate —that it seems to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, should have risen in his place at the outset of our deliberations and furnished the Committee with some information. The real trouble with the Committee and with the House in connection with financial expenditure is that although Members of the Government are frequently interrogated very little information is vouchsafed. It is about time that hon. Members insisted on a thorough examination of the expenditure


that is being indulged in by the Government, and that the Government satisfied us that this money is being well spent.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I always enjoy following the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), especially when he has made a speech of the kind he made today. I note a tendency of his to try to have it both ways. If my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had risen at the beginning of the debate, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman, or one of his colleagues, would have said that he was trying to cut short the debate. In this case, my hon. and gallant Friend has had the courtesy to wait to hear the views of the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman attacked him for doing so. This is a very natural gambit, and we all enjoy it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not blush too much now that I have caught him out at this trick, which he plays from time to time.
I agree with the decision of the Government to go for a commercial nuclear ship. It seems to me to have been right to delay taking a decision on what sort of propulsion machinery to use until we were in sight of producing something with a commercial application. My hesitation about this Supplementary Estimate, and about next year's Estimates, can best be expressed in the form of questions. First, how serious are the Government about getting into this business at all?
We see from the Supplementary Estimate that compensation of £250,000 is to be paid to the five tenderers, but it is reasonable to ask my hon. and gallant Friend how the knowledge and experience of these five tenderers has so far been used for the benefit of industry. Or is it the case that this knowledge and experience have been brought in and are now being reserved to the Government, or the Atomic Energy Authority, without that experience being passed round the rest of the industry?
To use a phrase that is in current usage today, it seems to me that the commercial and industrial fall-out of knowledge should be spread as widely as possible. The Atomic Energy Authority and free enterprise can both benefit from the cross-fertilisation of their ideas. I am not sure that this is happening today.
To put it no higher, there is a suspicion that the Authority, and those who work with it, are working inside a ring of firms—inside a tight closed shop—and that anyone who is not in the ring has a kind of second division status, and is considered to be not a worth-while firm but to be almost lower than dirt. If there is a scintilla of truth in this the nation is suffering from this freezing out of the venturesome and the risk-takers. I need mention only the recent case of Captain Atkins. It could be that he is right, and that the Atomic Energy Authority is wrong, in which case the Government are by-passing the one worth-while view. I express no technical knowledge on this matter, but it is possible that we are missing a great opportunity.
I know that if I were to elaborate on this matter I should be out of order, but I asked at the beginning of my speech how serious the Government were in their programme for a nuclear reactor. I asked that because, if we look at the Civil Estimates for next year, we see the item, "Development of Nuclear Propulsion for Merchant Ships, £10"—a couple of "fivers". We could hardly hear them crinkling together. Is this a serious venture into nuclear power, or am I misreading next year's Estimates? I hope that I am. If not, there will have to be a very large Supplementary Estimate at this time next year. As the right hon. Member for Easington rightly said, some of us will then be asking why there was not better budgeting and more accurate forecasting.
I should like to know to what degree those firms which are outside the five in the consortia are consulted about future developments. Is it true that one, or perhaps two, could put forward a commercial venture now? Many firms involved in this industry consider that they could supply a commercial power unit today. If so, and if private enterprise is not willing to take the risk, could not the Government themselves go forward with the venture, on the understanding that the tendering company would provide the instrumentation and the machinery at a fixed price and under guarantees? If this could be done, why should not the Government go ahead with something of this nature —perhaps a Fleet refuelling tanker?
We are discussing the question of Supplementary Estimates as a principle as well as in detail. I have my doubts about the whole method of Government accounting. It seems that Treasury control often goes too deeply into any venture. I wonder whether, on the question of nuclear propulsion for merchant navy ships, Her Majesty's Government should not appoint one person —perhaps with a Treasury aide to sit alongside him—to see the venture through as a whole, so as to be able to reduce expenditure in certain ways while stepping up research and development in other directions.
One person should have control over the whole venture. Heaven forbid that it should be the Minister; I am referring to someone who will do the whole work and not someone who will take a policy decision. I want a person who will see the venture through in detail and have control over every penny of expenditure, and not have to go back to the Treasury whenever a minor modification is made in the programme. If responsibility is placed further down the line the Government will get better value for the money they spend, and quicker decisions.
I repeat the questions that I have asked: first, is the experience gained from these five tenderers spread fairly round the whole industry; secondly, are those firms outside the consortia adequately consulted, and is their experience drawn upon and shared around as well, and, thirdly, will the Government consider my suggestion about the control of expenditure and see that people lower down the line are allowed to have this control? If they are, they will produce the results.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pentland: I hesitate to intervene, but since the question has been raised of our proposal to go forward with the project for a nuclear-powered merchant ship I feel that I ought to say a few words and follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) in asking how serious the Government are about this project, and how much money they intend to spend before it is finally in process of development. A good deal of nonsense has already been talked about this project, and about the possibilities

and potentialities of a nuclear-powered merchant ship.
During the past few weeks, some right hon. and hon. Members opposite have suggested that this ship was in process of being built in a certain shipyard. One would think that a ship would be built with a nuclear-powered reactor as a means of propulsion before the end of 1963, and that all the research and development on the nuclear reactor chosen had been completed. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is well known that although we knew in the beginning that there was a political motive behind the project, we must remember that the announcement about the ship was primarily a political decision. Nothing was said about it until a debate on the economic situation and the high figure of unemployment, when an announcement was made by the Prime Minister. In other words, the shipyard workers on the Tyne, the Wear and the Clyde were led to believe, following the Prime Minister's speech, that the unemployment problem in those areas would soon be eased because they would have the opportunity to build a nuclear-powered merchant ship in the very near future. That is not true at all.
The opinion of experts on nuclear propulsion is that although it is possible to envisage a nuclear-propelled ship in the future, that will not become a fact before 1967. They refer to certain tankers and oil loaders which may be nuclear-propelled, but not a large merchant ship. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that the Government are justified in taking a chance. If many of my hon. Friends had had their way, this project would have been examined, and evidence adduced for building a nuclear-powered merchant ship long ago.
If we could produce a nuclear reactor system comparable with other propulsion methods, we should be ahead of the world, and it would offer wide possibilities for our shipyards. My point is that it is quite wrong for the Government to raise false hopes about a project and create the impression in our shipyards, particularly in areas of high unemployment, that the chosen reactor has reached a final stage in its development, because that is not true. There is clearly a need for more facts to be known. I agree with


the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. A good deal more needs to be known about the Government's decision to choose the reactor system of the Atomic Energy Authority rather than the other systems which have been brought forward.
Here again, it is a question of being sure that the cost and effort put into the system is worth while and in the best interests of the nation. On 27th February, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is reported as having said that the Government had decided to develop a nuclear reactor and this had been done. Yet on the same day the scientific editor of the Financial Times wrote:
All the designs"—
meaning the reactors—
exists merely on paper and are frequently modified. Nobody has built one".
That is true, and it led me some weeks ago to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether it was a fact that the chosen reactors were at the drawing board stage and that before a reactor could be built, a tremendous amount of modification would have to be done. I do not wish to say any-Thing about the controversy which has arisen in the country over this project, except that I believe that it would be in the interests of the Government to tell the nation exactly why they decided to choose the reactor system which they have chosen. That should be made known before we decide to spend large sums of money on research and the development of a reactor system.
As I said some weeks ago, I feel that the Government must have a good reason for choosing the reactor. But the country should be informed. Without revealing any of the "know-how" of the system, the Government should indicate how they reached a final decision about this reactor.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I agree with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) that it would be a good thing if the Government and the A.E.A. made plain their answers to criticisms of these reactors. But I do not understand where the hon. Member got the idea that these ships are almost about to be built. Had he

followed the Parliamentary Questions and the statements made in this House on the subject, he would know that many of us have for a long time been pressing to get something decided. As long ago as December, 1961, I initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter and I wish that the hon. Gentleman had supported me on that occasion. It was the beginning of these research projects which have now got to a more advanced stage. The four types of reactors have been narrowed down to two.

Mr. Pentland: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said that for a long time right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been pressing for us to engage in research and development iii connection with a nuclear reactor system for merchant shipping. I agree that certain hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) have also been doing so. My point was that the impression was given that the ship would be built before the end of 1963. That was the impression with which people were left following the speech of the Prime Minister. An announcement was made as if there was a relevant project.

Mr. Digby: I agree that pressure for the ship has come from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Member said that the pressure began in 1961.

Mr. Digby: I did not say "began". I said that I had an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Rankin: I thought he followed that by saying that it was from this date that all this pressure arose. Surely the hon. Member would agree that long before then we had an exhibition at the office of the Board of Trade in which these reactors were on show. It was understood then that as a result of that exhibition the Government would come to the conclusion about the type of reactor to be chosen.

Mr. Digby: I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has misunderstood me. I thought I said that I had an Adjournment debate in December, 1961, at which time a £3 million research project was announced. That was not the first shot


in this controversy by any means. Before that date many people had been pressing for something of the kind.
In addition to referring to Subhead J of the Estimates, I wish also to refer to Subhead I, which shows an increase of £4,000 to be paid out by the Ministry of Transport to the A.E.A. This may seem a small sum and comparatively insignificant. But I believe it is rather significant. At Question Time today I asked how much of the £3 million research project had been spent and it was disclosed that only £1¼ million had been spent in a period of nearly a year and a half.
To me, that seems to show that the Ministry of Transport is not spending enough with A.E.A. and it has been a criticism that A.E.A. has been spending far too much in other directions, on power stations, and not enough on other uses for nuclear devices, such as marine propulsion. The fact that only £4,000 extra is being provided—I do not know what that means in terms of scientists—seems to me to indicate that this project is not being manned-up as we would hope would be the case, now that two types of reactors have been settled on. I was glad to hear, again at Question Time today, that it is hoped at the end of the summer to reach a decision between these two types of reactor. I hope that a little more than £4,000 can be spent in putting extra scientists into this project to make sure that a decision is reached.
I now turn from Subhead I to Subhead J, which is the subhead that other hon. Members have discussed. Here we have an expenditure of £250,000. I suppose that in the event this would be described by the Civil Service as "nugatory expenditure", expenditure for which, on the face of it, we get nothing. These five firms are to get this money. I confess that I am not particularly keen on the expenditure of public money in this way on private firms. That is not a principle I like very much.
It may be that in the circumstances it was necessary, but I should like to hear in the reply how those five firms were selected and whether this gives them a ticket, as it were, to be in on the next tenders. Will they automatically get in on the tenders next time? Can we believe that they have learned enough

by tendering for this project to be of value to the nation? That causes me to wonder whether it is not something of a precedent in procedure to pay out £50,000 on unsatisfactory tenders. During the discussions on the Navy Estimates it was pointed out that Polaris submarines were to be built, two in one place and two in another, but there were three possible yards to which the contract could go. Will the same principle apply in this case in which one of the three yards is bound to be unsuccessful?
Another point is the failure of the A.E.A. to answer the criticisms of the types of reactor it has put forward. There has been some doubt in the past as to how wise some of its decisions have been about power stations. Now that we are going forward, is there not a danger that once more we may be faced with some kind of nugatory expenditure such as that which is before us in this Committee? As to the rights and wrongs of the integration idea and whether it is wise, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) seemed to doubt, to put the pumps right inside the reactor and whether it is not possible that something would go wrong I do not know the correct answer. Evidence seems to show that in nuclear engineering very much greater precision is necessary than in ordinary engineering.
It could be that here we are on the wrong lines. It may be that instead of trying to get a completely integrated reactor the whole of which can be removed from a ship, we should be thinking on the lines of finding a method of fuelling which would last for the lifetime of the ship. The life of a merchant ship is limited, but that may be looking too far ahead. It may be that these are the lines on which we should be working.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will tell us about these things. I hope he will tell us in particular about the five firms, or consortia, which are to receive £50,000 each and whether there is an implied understanding with them—and only them—that they will be allowed to come forward on the next occasion and offer their tenders.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like to follow the remarks of my hon. Friends the Member for


Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) in speaking on Subhead J. I should like particularly to press the point about the five tenderers.
Could my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the same situation will apply in respect of those tenders as applied in the case of the contracting for Polaris submarines, which also will be atomic-powered, and whether the reasoning has been followed that only to those yards with previous experience of building such submarines will it be open to tender in future for more building of a similar kind. If we are to go on applying the principle that only those in at the beginning can remain in the struggle, very many engineering interests in the country will be neglected and will miss the spread of "know-how" to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South referred.
Like the right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell), I should have liked to hear the Parliamentary Secretary opening this discussion this afternoon in order that we might have been shown just how far this Class IV, Vote 13, went. There are many other subjects mentioned in Vote 13 besides that under Subhead J, which has been the main topic of discussion. I should like to know in respect of the first item how far the expenditure of £342,000 went to meet the expenditure in negotiations which my hon. and gallant Friend has been undertaking to help British shipping interests over the past year.
I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if in his reply he will indicate to the Committee what efforts he has been making under this head, which are covered to some extent by this expenditure, to assist British shipping interests. It is difficult to address the Committee on this subject without more knowledge of the exact limits and things which are covered. Therefore, I add my support to the criticism which has been voiced about lack of information which the Supplementary Estimate gives to the Committee.
I wish to contradict some remarks made by some hon. Friends who have tended to criticise this amount. I should like to see much greater amounts. I should like to see enough to cover additional expenditure designed to assist British shipping interests in meeting the type of competi-

tion which they have to face and which hon. Members have continually spoken about, at least in the past four years, practices which I should not go into today because that might well be out of order, although I am not sure. These are practices which my hon. and gallant Friend knows about, flag discrimination, flags of convenience and practices of subsidised shipbuilding. How far does this expenditure cover the Government's efforts to meet those practices?

The Chairman (Sir William AnstrutherGray): I hope the lion. Member will not go too far in asking those questions, because it will be quite impossible for the Minister to remain in order and at the same time to give an answer to them.

Mr. McMaster: Thank you, Sir William. Perhaps, in view of that Ruling, I should summarise—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I direct your attention, Sir William, to some of the items in the Supplementary Estimate which surely have a bearing on general shipping policy? If you will allow me to do so, I shall read them. There are "Weather bulletins, navigational warnings and time signals", Surely those are related to shipping policy? There are "Services for seamen". Leaving out matters under Subheads I and J, we have: "Facilities for handling explosives" and, later under "Services for Shipping", "Radio aids to navigation" and the "North Atlantic Ice Patrol". Surely those are definitely related to shipping? I should have thought that those items justified the comment of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) who asked for further information on Government shipping policy, for which I also ask.

The Chairman: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He has read out subjects which are specifically mentioned. They are indeed in order. I thought that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) went further than that. Flag discrimination was one subject he mentioned, which I do not think would be in order, and I think that he was prepared to stray even further.

Mr. McMaster: Yes, Sir William. I accept this restriction. I am grateful for the intervention of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I was


restricting myself to the main Supplementary Estimate rather than dealing with the subheads. I should like particularly to know whether the expenditure of £342,000 covers items such as the conference about which we have read recently which is taking place with European countries and is designed to meet these practices. If not, what is covered by this item? Would my hon. and gallant Friend consider increasing these Estimates to include measures which would assist our shipping to stand up to the practices to which I have referred, if he is not able to persuade the other countries involved to take other action to meet these practices?

5.12 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee on what might appear at first sight to be a very trivial matter. It is a subject which I have raised previously with my hon. and gallant Friend by means of Question and Answer. I am at a certain disadvantage in knowing whether the subject I wish to raise comes under "Governmental Shipping Services" or "Services for Shipping". On balance, I think that it comes under "Services for Shipping, Civil Defence and Related Expenditure". I have to be as vague as this, because it appears nowhere specifically either in the main Estimates or in the Supplementary Estimates.
About eighteen months ago I raised with my hon. and gallant Friend a question to which I then got a rather unsatisfactory answer. I hope that he will be able to improve upon it today. I refer to the provision by the Ministry of Transport of mooring buoys for a purpose which I believe to be for civil defence. This came to my notice up in a small part of Scotland, because I saw out at sea no less than seven mooring buoys which, as far as the local inhabitants could tell me, had never been used before. As far as I am aware, they have never been used since. I tabled a Question to my hon. and gallant Friend asking what use was made of these buoys. I asked whether he would consider their reduction. He told me that one of the buoys had been used for a period of four weeks during the last four years. I then suggested that perhaps there were grounds for reducing the number by six buoys. He then gave me a most unsatisfactory

answer which I hope he will recall as vividly as I do. He said that, in so far as the fact that these buoys had not been used showed that the merchant fleet was in full operation, he was very pleased with the fact.
These buoys cost £1,000 per buoy per year to maintain. They have been used for a period of four weeks in the last four years. I was told in answer to another Question that the Ministry maintains 120 or 130 additional buoys. If they are maintained at the same cost of £1,000 per buoy per year, that means that £130,000 appears either in the Estimates or in the Supplementary Estimates under "Services for Shipping, Civil Defence and Related Expenditure".
I want to know how many of these buoys are in existence controlled by the Ministry of Transport. How much use is made of them? I want to know the answers to those questions after my hon. and gallant Friend has told me what the purpose of the buoys is, because that is not at all clear to me. I know that this is outside this Supplementary Estimate, but the Admiralty maintains about 1,000 buoys. Is there any consultation, because if the Admiralty's buoys cost the same to maintain, that is another £1 million on mooring buoys alone. Is there any consultation with the Admiralty? I have no doubt that the Ministry of Aviation also has some buoys, though I shall never know why. What consultation goes on with other Departments with a view to getting some sensible answer to this? What service is provided by these buoys? To whom is the service provided and what charge is made for the service? How much longer are we going to have to pay for these buoys year after year in these Estimates and Supplementary Estimates?

5.16 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) for not hearing the whole of his speech. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend is going to speak at the end of the debate, because this will give him an opportunity to answer the questions and points which have been put to him.
The first point of which I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will take close note is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland,


South (Mr. P. Williams). I support my hon. Friend in emphasising the importance of more people lower down the scale of administration being empowered to take real decisions. This is a point which is worrying many of our younger technical generation, who see more and more of their valuable technical time being wasted in attending committee after committee composed of no doubt very excellent administrative civil servants who know nothing about the technical problems and therefore waste the time of the technical men.
I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will learn something from certain Scandinavian Governments, notably the Swedish Government, who are prepared to send over to this country a small delegation of a technical man, a Treasury man, as my hon. Friend suggested, and perhaps somebody in a ministerial capacity. That committee of three listens to what a commercial firm has to offer and then makes a quick decision. This is an important advance which we could copy from Scandinavian countries.
I want to turn my attention, as other hon. Members have, to Subheads I and J in the Supplementary Estimate. I, too, am very worried that we are not spending nearly enough on nuclear research and nuclear development in all its branches. I should say straight away that I have interests in the marine engineering world, as some hon. Members know. I do not believe that I have any interest to declare to the Committee in this matter. I merely mention it lest anybody picks me up later. I deplore the expenditure of a mere £¼ million in this important sphere.
I wonder if we could have a clear explanation, when my hon. and gallant Friend replies, of the increase in Subhead H. It seems a curious fact that there will be a very substantial increase in wages, expenses, etc., of seamen left abroad.
I come to Head D. We all welcome decreases in provision. These are always welcome, but it seems to me that a decrease due to a—
Reduced payment to Admiralty in consequence of delayed recruitment of technical staff "—
implies some adverse criticism on somebody. What technical staff were they? Why was there this delay in recruiting them? What is being done to remedy the matter? There is the modest decrease of

£5,000 for the North Atlantic Ice Patrol, and I would like to know how that decrease comes about. Is it because better technical equipment is being used?
Under Subhead O we see the cost of facilities for handling explosives at Cliffe Anchorage, and it would be interesting to know what is to happen in this area. What new arrangements are being made? All these points should be explained in greater detail than can be set out in a Supplementary Estimate, and I hope that the Minister, without giving an excessively long reply, will give a clear, concise and satisfactory explanation of all these things. It is all too easy to gloss over these increases and decreases.

Mr. P. Williams: Would my hon. Friend say the same about Subhead M concerning the delay in the execution of the programme? There there is a decrease of £54,000. Surely my hon. Friend is aware that there can be just as inefficient and bad government resulting from overspending as there can from under-spending. Do we not want to see accuracy in spending without either over-spending or under-spending?

Mr. Wells: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's help. That is what I was implying in my remarks when dealing with the figures. We want to know the full story behind both the increases and the decreases.
Two hon. Members have made either direct or overt references to the case of Captain Atkins. I believe that it is quite possible for Captain Atkins to have been right. It is equally possible that he was not right but I hope that in dealing with Subhead J—" Development of nuclear propulsion in merchant ships"—my hon. and gallant Friend will say something clear and concise about Captain Atkins.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) referred to circulating pumps, and although I do not wish to go into this matter in detail, I hope that we will have a clearer answer on this than we have had in previous years. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will go through the Estimate in some detail, in a concise way— without necessarily going to great lengths—and will reply to the points we have raised.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Under Subhead J we are informed of the payment of £50,000 to each of five tenderers by way of a contribution towards their costs of preparing tenders for a nuclear reactor. As I understand it, we have accepted two types of reactor—the Vulcain and the integral boiling reactor. It would be interesting to know what contribution the tenderers mentioned in Subhead J made towards this selection. For instance, did any of the five tenderers make a contribution towards either of the two reactors selected, or did we select them from other sources? I understand that Belgium invented the first one, while the integral reactor came from somewhere else. How was the decision on the final reactor made?
A lot of criticism has been thrown at the scheme for nuclear reaction, and we have all heard about the case of Captain Atkins. As I understand it, he is a marine engineer and not a physicist or great expert in nuclear power. I suppose that the problem he wanted to bring out concerned the question of whether the steam generated by the nuclear furnace would result in radioactivity being carried throughout the ship. I dare say that that problem was settled some years ago by the physicists and that, by the use of certain gases which have a quickly dying radioactivity content, one can produce steam which can be used in engines without radioactivity being caused throughout the ship. I suppose that that was one of the first problems set when considering applying nuclear power to ships.
I would be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend would tell us more about the five tenderers mentioned in Subhead J, the extent to which they did help us in selecting the Vulcain or the integral boiling reactor, and the amount of work done by any or all of them.

5.26 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I had not intended to speak, because I never really feel that a debate on the Estimates is my subject. It is difficult for me, since I have no particular knowledge of nuclear marine propulsion, to dare to take part in a discussion of this sort.
I have followed with considerable interest the subject of the development of

nuclear reactors in ships for a number of years. It is interesting to find that a certain amount of money has been offered for preparing reactors for further investigation. That is extremely important and I am delighted that that has been done. However, I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to tell me whether, involved in the £50,000 to each party, any of the money will go to Belgium—and will come forward in a different set of Estimates—because it seems obvious that the Belgians must be concerned with expenditure in the preparation of reactors suitable for this purpose.
Captain Atkins happens to be a friend of mine and I regret that I could not be in the Chamber to follow the whole of the debate. It is disturbing and distressing to note that there is a controversy over whether or not we have got the right types of reactor. I was never very keen on the idea of these reactors becoming buried, so to speak, in the Atomic Energy Authority but, alas, they got buried there. That is all I can say from the impression I got when I visited Risley the other day However, even with my immature knowledge of these matters, it seemed to me that progress was being made and I am glad to report that.
I am not sufficiently competent to see the difference, from the drawings, between the type of reactor under consideration and the original reactor with which, I gather, these Estimates are concerned and which was shown at an exhibition at the Board of Trade on behalf of the Admiralty and the commercial interests working with the Admiralty at the time. However, I was pleased to learn that advances had been made.
I have always understood that this is a free country and it gives me great concern that a man of great distinction and knowledge in marine engineering—and I have gone out of my way to satisfy myself that the statements I am making are correct—and a man who has a lot of friends in this country who know his value, should have been treated by his employers in the way Captain Atkins was treated. I am not now arguing whether or not he was right to have done what he did, but when someone who would appear to have a perfect right, bearing in mind his knowledge, comes out with certain criticisms, it is regrettable that he should have been dealt with in this way.
It is important that we should establish in this country the principle that, when people have expert knowledge to offer, their advice should be taken in the proper spirit. I understand a part of the argument for the rejection of the other reactors by the Atomic Energy Authority—and I have no doubt that the Authority was right to have made its decision—but, at the same time, we have never been given any real details about that decision.
I well remember that when the first reactors appeared at this exhibition, the Government and commercial interests were very concerned with getting on with development, because at that time the United States of America were then busy with the "Savannah". Suddenly, the United States went off the "Savannah", on economic grounds, so the Admiralty thought it necessary to follow suit. I do not like my country to be governed like that. I like to think that we are going ahead whether the United States of America choose to do so or not. To me, the selection of proper reactors is of paramount important because I want to see us leading the world. We are the greatest shipbuilders in the world, so I do not see why we cannot lead it in this sphere.
The Admiralty having fallen back because the United States of America had fallen back, it was decided that the Atomic Energy Authority would do the development, and the companies that had developed their reactors—and which are, I assume, to be paid out of this Estimate —were told that two reactors had been chosen. If Captain Atkins liked to criticise those reactors and to say that the reactor developed by the firm for which he was working was a better one, he is quite entitled to say so—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend agree that Captain Atkins is a marine engineer—not a physicist? Would she, therefore, go so far as to say that his criticism of a nuclear reactor would have no standing?

Dame Irene Ward: All I can say is that if my hon. Friend took the trouble to go to Risley—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I have been there.

Dame Irene Ward: Then perhaps he did not know that working on the reactor side there are marine engineers from Vickers, because when the reactor is

decided on it has to be put in a ship, and marine engineers are very concerned with the problem of linking the reactor to the ship's operations. I do not want to bite my hon. Friend's head off—I do not know whether he is a nuclear physicist, which I am not, or a marine engineer, which I am not—but I must say that if I got my lesson correctly at Risley, one needs marine engineers and nuclear physicists working together if we are to get a perfect combination when the ship with the nuclear reactor finally goes to sea.
My hon. Friend might like to discuss the question with our very distinguished marine engineers in the north of England who know the reputation of Captain Atkins. Incidentally, I may tell my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that, in a way, the people there are very glad to have a distinguished member of Her Majesty's Navy dealing with this aspect of transport, because he does know something about a ship at sea. If my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) goes to the north of England and discusses this from the point of view of the marine engineer, he will find a large number of distinguished people who are as concerned as Captain Atkins is about this problem.
I went out of my way to make inquiries. The Atomic Energy Authority people—and I had a very delightful time when I visited them—complained that Captain Atkins was the only person who had made criticism, but that is not true. He may have been the only person to have had the courage to criticise, but that does not say that he is the only person to have made criticism. If he never made criticism to the Authority, he has made many criticisms at technical conferences, and when a distinguished marine engineer, or a distinguished nuclear physicist criticises in this way, the Authority would be well advised to get in touch with him.
I know that I am a difficult person, so I often stand up for difficult persons. Captain Atkins may be a difficult man, but I like difficult men. As it is public money that is being expended, the Atomic Energy Authority would have been wise to have got in touch with Captain Atkins and let him have his say. It is quite untrue to say that the Authority did not know that he had made those criticisms. He had made


them at technical conferences, and I suppose that the staff of the Authority read the reports of technical conferences. I should be very surprised if they did not.
The next point—

Mr. J. Wells: Before my hon. Friend leaves that subject, I may tell her that I am—and I speak with some diffidence —a marine engineer. There has been a good deal of talk one way and another, but I deplore, as I did in my maiden speech, the extraordinary vagueness we all use as non-experts when criticising the experts. I would remind my hon. Friend of the very sound speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), which really hit the nail on the head.

Dame Irene Ward: I was only too sorry not to have been able to hear that speech. I am sure that my bon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) said a lot of wise things, as usual, but I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) that Her Majesty's Government do not always listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South says. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has listened. The fact remains that I know a lot of marine engineers, and I know the talk that is going on now about this matter. I am not an expert, but in circles to which I would pay some attention there is great anxiety. As I mentioned in a supplementary question only today, it has been suggested that it would be a good idea if some completely independent body now looked at the development of the reactors and offered an independent view on what is being made. I believe that to be a very sound idea.
I understand that Captain Atkins wanted to go to Risley, but was not received. I suppose that the Atomic Energy Authority is a Government Department. Provided that proper security is observed, it is not for Government Departments to refuse to see people who have been, at any rate, connected with a design, whether it was the right design or not. If Captain Atkins wanted to go to Risley, it is a pity that he was not received there. Anyone intimately connected with these matters should have been received at Risley. I

am only sorry that he did not go, because he might have been as attracted as I was by the progress that has been made.
I am very sorry not to give an expert view, but I am not trying to do so. I speak only of what I know, and I know that very many people have great anxieties over what is happening in the Atomic Energy Authority at the moment. My only concern is that we should have a first-class reactor and that it should perform magnificently when we build a nuclear ship. I also hope that not only the nuclear ship but, in due course, the nuclear reactor will be built on the North-East Coast.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I am glad to know that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) sits down a satisfied woman: she has said all that she wanted to say, and that is a very considerable achievement in this Committee. Very many of us sit down, or are compelled to do so, before we have said half of what we wanted to say.
This evening I want to make a very short contribution to the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In that effort there is nothing like having the full support of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. It gives me the confidence which I feel I often lack in addressing this distinguished Assembly. I want to get away from nuclear propulsion for the moment. I may return to it, if I am tempted, but I want to deal now with the item on page 101 of the Civil Estimates relating to services for shipping.
There it tells us of a number of decreases. Subhead D deals with radio aids to navigation. I think that on both sides of the Committee we shall agree that this is a most essential service in navigating a ship today. We are told, in small print:
Reduced payment to Admiralty in consequence of delayed recruitment of technical staff.
That is my first point—delayed recruitment.
Then we come to Sub-head F which deals with the North Atlantic Ice Patrol, which is again a most essential service. There we are informed that the cost was originally over-estimated. Then I come to the reference: "Civil Defence and


Related Expenditure." Sub-head L deals with the part in which I am particularly interested, Faslane Port. We are told there:
Reconstruction of works and incidental expenses: Delay in execution of programme.
Under Subhead M, where the delay in the execution of the programme at Faslane is again referred to, we find that there has been a decrease of £54,000. I presume that that decrease is due to the delay.
There are three items dealing with services for shipping, and all that we get from the Government in the execution of these services are a series of delays. Whether there was dithering at some time or not I do not know, but I assume that, when we have these delays, there must have been a great deal of dithering. Overestimation in a most important service is also another reason for a decrease. It seems to me that one of the distinguishing features of the Government in almost everything they handle is represented by this part of the Estimates dealing with the services for shipping. Continuing delay has been the hallmark of their treatment of this part of the Estimate and the work which the expenditure represents; and also the hallmark of the Government themselves. I could go on to enumerate other examples which are equally true but none of them can be discussed on this Estimate. Therefore, I am restricted in what I might want to say, so I return to Subhead J, which has been a matter of considerable comment during the debate—the development of nuclear propulsion in merchant ships.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Blackburn): The hon. Gentleman has not been restricted in what he has said as much as he ought to have been. If he will turn to Erskine May, page 738, he will find there that on the Supplementary Estimates savings cannot be discussed.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Blackburn I am glad of the co-operation of the Chair and with respect would point out that I had no opportunity of referring to Erskine May, because I have not a copy with me. I am glad to know that these decreases which I thought were due to delay were only savings which were imposed upon a Government which did not want to make them. However, may I, Mr. Blackburn, come back to Subhead J,

which deals with the development of nuclear propulsion in merchant ships?
I was much interested in one remark which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth made. She referred to an exhibition, and I think that she was referring to the same exhibition to which I referred when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). That exhibition, as I think the hon. Lady will agree, was held a good many years ago, and it seemed to me, when the hon. Gentleman was speaking, that he said that all the pressure which was being applied with regard to nuclear propulsion in merchant ships arose from the time when he had his Adjournment debate in 1961. The hon. Gentleman disputed that with me, but I had the opportunity of referring to the words he used and I find that what I said was correct. He had forgotten in a fairly brief space of time his own words. The pressure for nuclear propulsion in ships was exerted a number of years prior to that debate in 1961.

Dame Irene Ward: In 1958.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, I thought it was a year or two earlier than that.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: In 1959.

Mr. Rankin: No, that is quite wrong. The Government, from the time of that exhibition in the Board of Trade offices, managed by some means or another to create in the minds of shipbuilders the impression that nuclear propulsion was something which if it was not imminent was worthy of an exhibition to find the best type of reactor. I believe that about eight firms in the United Kingdom took part in that exhibition. I attended it. Most of those with whom I spoke believed that the Government seriously intended to discover the best type of nuclear reactor for the propulsion of a merchant ship.
Questions were raised in the House after the exhibition about what decision had been reached, but time went on and nothing was done and no firm or clear lead was given by the Government on the question of their intention not merely towards the nuclear reactors which had been on exhibition but towards any other nuclear reactor that might be produced by some other body.
The Government were in a state of confusion. Delay was the keynote of their attitude towards the problem, the delay which has characterised so many of the other Subheads in the Estimates before us. If wrong conceptions have grown up, the Government are directly responsible for creating them. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport replies to the debate he will tell us exactly what the situation is in regard to the nuclear propulsion of merchant ships.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that mention has already been made of the Q4, the mysterious vessel which was previously the Q3 which we discussed nearly two years ago and to the building of which the Government decided to give financial aid. The Q3 which we then had in mind has disappeared from practical realisation, but now there is mention of a Q4 and it has been stated, on what authority I know not, that the Q4 will be propelled by nuclear methods. This is being freely canvassed and it would be well if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could clear up tonight the position on nuclear propulsion for merchant ships generally and particularly as it affects 04. Some objections have been made by hon. Members opposite, and may even have been made on this side of the Committee for all I know, about the payment of £50,000 to the individuals who have produced nuclear reactors. I agree in principle with those hon. Members opposite who objected to this payment.

Mr. Loughlin: Did I understand my hon. Friend to say that £50,000 had been paid to individuals who had produced reactors? This payment has nothing to do with producing reactors.

Mr. Rankin: I refer to the statement:
The payment of £50,000 to each of five tenderers by way of a contribution towards their costs of preparing tenders for a nuclear reactor.
I am sorry. I now find that I missed a word in reading the document and I agree with my hon. Friend that this had nothing to do with producing a reactor, but it had everything to do with work involved in preparing the tenders.
Hon. Members opposite tell us that, under the system in which they believe,

capital must take risks. I suppose that this is one of the risks which capital takes, but there were special circumstances here. These firms were very unfairly treated by the Government. I would not look upon this payment as compensation but rather as conscience money paid by the Government to people who tendered and who were treated rather badly, as I know was the case with one firm.
I hope that I have lived up to my initial statement that I would make a short speech.[Interruption.]Well, it has been short to me. Somehow or other when I get on my feet time seems to fly. Some hon. Members opposite have not been here all the time. Some of them came in only a few minutes ago. I do not know whether my name went up on the annunciator or not, but some hon. Members walked out and some came in. These are the arrows of outrageous fortune we must put up with in this Chamber. I hope that in the short time during which I have occupied the attention or inattention of the Committee I have given the Parliamentary Secretary some points which he will think worthy of reply.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not yet chosen to speak in the debate, because had he done so it might have been unnecessary for me to intervene. I rise to make a short point, which is to voice the feeling of protest in our shipyards against the Government's delay in this whole matter of following up as closely as they might have done the question of nuclear propulsion for merchant shipping. My own view is that the Government have as sorry a record in this respect as in almost any other. Those who are concerned with our shipyards feel that if the Government had applied their mind more vigorously to the problem we should not be voting at this late hour a sum of £250,000 to make a payment of £50,000 each to five firms for preparing tenders.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the matter and will let shipyard interests and shipyard workers know why the Government have been so shockingly slow. This is a matter which gives rise to great concern. I hope that when we have a reply we shall be


told something about the prospects of these tenders, when they are likely to be forthcoming, what is the possible programme of development, and when we shall get somewhere in this important work of applying nuclear propulsion to merchant ships.
It is a pity that this country's Merchant Navy, which had such a marvellous record in its early days, should be so sadly neglected by the Government. In view of the balance of payments problems, the country's economy, and so on, I cannot understand why the Government should have been so utterly indifferent to the interests of British shipbuilders and of the whole shipping industry. They have a shocking record, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us much more than we have been told about the application of nuclear propulsion to merchant ships.

6.0 p.m.

Mr Stan Awbery: There has been a long and unnecessary delay in developing nuclear propulsion for merchant ships. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) mentioned the display a few years ago at the Ministry of Transport. I attended that display and saw the models exhibited there, and my impression was that it would not be long before we had nuclear-propelled vessels at sea. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the reason for the long delay in this matter.
In December, 1959, over three years ago, the Government stated that they would shortly invite tenders for the construction of nuclear-powered merchant ships and would decide where the orders should be placed. Apparently, they were to choose between two types of nuclear reactor for propelling vessels of 65,000 tons. That promise was made in December, 1959, and nothing has been done about it until we find in the Supplementary Estimate today that £50,000 is to be given to five construction firms for the purpose of testing out reactors.

Mr. Collick: That is not the purpose. The purpose is to enable them to tender.

Mr. Awbery: All right—for preparing the tenders for the propulsion of nuclear-powered vessels.
In January, 1960, the Minister of Transport said that invitations to tender

would be sent out to five firms. Nothing has been done until we have the Supplementary Estimate before us today,
In May, 1962, the Minister of Transport stated in this Chamber that a shipping advisory panel consisting of 17 members would be set up to advise the Minister about shipping. I should like to know whether this Committee has been set up, and, if so, whether it has met and whether recommendations have been made concerning the five firms which should be selected for the building of nuclear-powered ships. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can answer that question this evening.
Not only are we behind on nuclear-powered ships. We are behind in every shipping sense. Last year we lost our position as the major country in the world for the construction of ships. Japan has taken our place and we are now second. In November last year the Minister was asked whether any decision concerning nuclear reactors for marine propulsion had been made. He said that research was going on and that he hoped to report shortly. A few days later, the Ministry was asked whether it would give the date on which work would start on nuclear-propelled ships. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary was that nothing was to be done in November.
On 30th November the Minister was asked when he expected to have nuclear commercial ships at sea. The answer was that he could not say and that it depended on the progress made in research.

Commander Courtney: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on many of the points which he is raising, but he and his hon. Friends are a little late in the day. All the Questions which he is quoting came from Members on this side—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I beg hon. Members' pardon; the majority came from this side. It is only eight months since a very strong Motion was put on the Order Paper which had no party political bias in it. My recollection is that not one right hon. or hon. Member opposite even read it, much less signed it.

Mr. Strauss: Constant Questions and pressures have come from my hon. Friends and myself on this subject over many years.

Mr. Rankin: Even before the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) became a Member.

Mr. Awbery: I do not wish to take from hon. Members opposite any credit which they may claim for complaining about the delay of three and a half years in dealing with marine nuclear propulsion. Hon. Members opposite and we on this side have been probing the Minister because of the delay which has taken place. We are concerned about the delay in bringing nuclear-propelled vessels into operation. There are nuclear-propelled vessels already at sea. The United States and the U.S.S.R. have such ships. I cannot understand why the major maritime country in the world should be left behind.

Mr. E. G. Willis: My hon. Friend is being far too lenient with the Government in suggesting that there has been a delay of three and a half years. This matter was raised long before the last General Election. There was an exhibition in Whitehall and the Galbraith Committee was appointed in order to determine which of the six reactors which were exhibited there was the best. My hon. Friend is letting the Government off too lightly.

Mr. Awbery: I do not wish to rub it in. I am anxious to give the Government credit for anything that they have done, but promises were given three years ago by the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister that something would be done about developing nuclear-propelled vessels. That is why I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us the reason for the delay. Perhaps he can go back further and show that the delay has been longer than three and a half years.

6.9 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): At one stage during the debate, a long time ago now, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) deplored the fact that I had not opened it with a general statement on shipping policy and regretted that we were debating only the Supplementary Estimate and not the vast sums concerned in the main Estimate. We are considering an additional sum of £342,000 in the Supplementary Estimate. Had we been debat-

ing the main Estimate, the sum would have been £1 million. We are here concerned with a very small Vote, and would find it impossible—and I am sure that you would also, Mr. Blackburn—to relate anything in this Vote to general shipping policy. The right hon. Gentleman was later aided and abetted by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) in the same enterprise.
Nothing in the Supplementary Estimate we are discussing entitles me to go into general questions of shipping policy and still less to discuss the Cunard Company's policy on the "Queen" liners.

Mr. Rankin: I did not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go into the question of the "Queens". I asked him to clear up the problem of nuclear propulsion in the 04.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The answer is "No". I could not do that, because there is nothing in the Supplementary Estimates which even indirectly relates to that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), who intervened later in the debate but has had to leave with others of my hon. Friends to attend a committee, surprised hon. Members by telling us that she seldom dared to enter debates of this nature, but I had not noticed this before. I should like to clear up one point put by my hon. Friend. None of the expenditure in these Supplementary Estimates has anything whatever to do with the two reactors on which research and development is being concentrated; that is to say, it has nothing to do with the Vulcain or I.B.R. reactors. Neither has it anything to do with Captain Atkins.
The one point, however, on which I was in complete agreement with my hon. Friend was that we share with her, as, I am sure, does the whole Committee, the desire that this country should lead the world in this sphere.

Mr. Rankin: We will need to hurry up to do that.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who opened the debate, courteously let me know the two points which he intended to raise. One was the Suez Canal clearance and the other is the question, which has dominated most of


the debate, of the compensation which is being paid to the tendering firms for the nuclear installations. If it is for the convenience of the Committee, I should like to deal, first, with the Suez question, then with the various points on other Subheads which were touched upon by hon. Members on both sides and to end up with the question of the nuclear tenderers.
The arrangements concerning the Suez Canal are much more complicated than the right hon. Member for Vauxhall indicated. When I came to study the matter, I was reminded at once of the story that we were told on Friday by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) when he reminded us that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain spoke for five hours in the Plimsoll debate. I will endeavour to get my explanation of the Suez Canal expenditure within a shorter compass of time. It is, however, an extremely complicated question.
The Committee will remember that the Canal was blocked and clearance was begun at the turn of the year in 1956–57 by an Anglo-French task force. Shortly afterwards, at the request of the United Nations, the work was taken over by that organisation. The Anglo-French force withdrew and after some delay, the work was started under the auspices of the United Nations.
The total cost of the salvage operation came to just over £3 million. It was decided to pay for this by a levy on the ships using the Canal. For administrative convenience, the levy was expressed as a percentage of the Canal dues and was payable by the person paying the dues although in practice, from the very beginning, the liability was accepted by the Governments.
That liability of Governments did not, however, follow the flag of the ship. It depended upon the nationality of the company responsible for paying the Canal dues. The responsibility of Her Majesty's Government therefore extended not only to United Kingdom ships working on the business of United Kingdom companies, but also to foreign ships time-chartered to United Kingdom companies. Conversely, United Kingdom ships which were time-chartered to foreign companies were not the liability of Her Majesty's Government.
The machinery for the payment was as follows. The 3 per cent. surcharge was paid by the shipowner or charterer direct to the Banque Belge, which acted as collecting agent for the United Nations. The shipowners or the charterers were then reimbursed by Her Majesty's Government. I might say in passing that two senior officials of the Ministry of Transport visited Brussels to inspect the operation of the scheme and to assure themselves that it was being fairly administered. They were received with every courtesy and they left fully satisfied.
The collection of the surcharge has been delayed for two reasons. First, the Banque Belge has had difficulty—in some cases great difficulty—in attributing liability in the case of a number of ships, particularly those under flags of convenience. Secondly, certain Governments, notably those of the United States and Japan, paid the surcharge direct to the Banque Beige and the process of establishing afterwards for what transits they were liable has taken time.
Since the United Kingdom shipowners and charterers were paying the surcharge at the time of transit, we felt some fear that by the time the United Nations had collected the full amount, a number of claims would still be outstanding against countries whose ships were not paying cash, with the result that Her Majesty's Government would have borne more than their fair share.
Therefore, for transits made after 6th August, 1960, the United Kingdom changed over to the system whereby the surcharge is paid direct by the Government to the United Nations for those transits for which we accept liability. It is now known that the full cost will have been recovered on transits made up to 15th March, 1961. Indeed, the closing date may well be earlier, depending upon the success of the United Nations in allocating responsibility for 4,000 transits for which liability is still in doubt. The total sum so far paid by the United Kingdom is £1,200,000. We have also accepted liability for transits the surcharge on which amounts to £180,000. That sum, for which the Supplementary Estimate is needed, falls to be paid within a few days.
It is possible that our final liability after all the cases at present under investigation


have been settled may amount to £1,450,000, so that we estimate that in that event, about £70,000 will remain to be paid over and above the £180,000 which I have mentioned. If I may go out of order for a moment to call the Committee's attention to the fact, a token sum of £1,000 has been allowed for this purpose in the Estimates for the coming year. At the time the Estimates were prepared, it had been hoped that the whole account would have been cleared up this year. To the extent that the United Nations can allocate liability for doubtful cases, however, the remaining sum to be paid may well be reduced.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall asked why the need for this Supplementary Estimate could not have been foreseen. There are three reasons. First, until a number of doubtful cases had been cleared and settlement had been reached between the United Nations and the countries whose Governments paid direct, it was impossible to say what our liability would be. Again, it was not known in advance what proportion of ships using the Canal were employed by United Kingdom interests as opposed to ships under the United Kingdom flag. In the event, it has turned out to be rather more than was first expected, mainly because of the number of tankers, of ever-increasing size, that were and have been chartered by British oil companies. Thirdly, the United Nations has at no time made an interim report on how the scheme was going forward.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), when Foreign Secretary, announced the commencement of the scheme in the House of Commons on 1st August, 1958, he said that our cooperation in the scheme as a whole was dependent upon the co-operation of other countries. The United Nations estimates that if the scheme is terminated for transits up to 15th March, 1961, the surcharge that has actually been collected will be at least 82 per cent. of the total theoretically collectable if all the ships were paid for. That being so, we think that the proviso entered by my right hon. and learned Friend in 1958 has been met. I hope that with this explanation the Committee will be satisfied. I apologise for

the complicated explanation that it has involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) ran almost the whole course of Supplementary Estimates. I shall mention briefly some of the Subheads they referred to, but as you, Mr. Blackburn, rightly pointed out, we are debarred by the rule that smaller sums and savings should not be debated.
The first one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone was the question of the navigational warnings and weather bulletins, for which an additional sum of £29,000 is required. The costs of this service were included under this Subhead for many years. It was provided by the Post Office as our agent and has now been discontinued. The apparatus used for this service was of very litle value for any other purpose, however, and accordingly the Ministry was required to compensate the Post Office for the capital expenditure which would otherwise have been recovered through the annual charges. This compensation accounts for the great bulk of the Supplementary Estimate.
I have received a number of letters on this which may interest hon. Members, and I should like to say something about why we decided to discontinue the service. It was started in 1924, and in 1929 no less than 10,618 requests were made for bearings. But by 1960 this number had dropped to 227. The reason for this great fall is the fact that ships rely more and more upon radar and less and less upon a system of navigation fixings which was really becoming out of date. The sub-committee which advises us on this pointed out that we must either conclude the existing system, since it has out-lived its usefulness, or establish a new D.F. system with new equipment. We did not consider the expense of that to be justified.
Under Subhead H, I was asked why the cost of repatriating seamen left abroad has risen. One reason is the larger number who had to be repatriated last year, which was largely due to the fact that the whole crew of one ship—though not a very large crew—had to be repatriated from the Red Sea.


That accounted for about £3,000. Since the original estimates were made, boarding., and medical charges abroad have increased substantially, accounting for about £5,000. But nearly all this greater expenditure will he recovered in future years from the beneficiaries.
There were one or two other rather complicated items. The Committee may be surprised to learn that the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lower the qualifying age for post-war credits involved a charge of about £5,000 on this Vote. The reason is that the Ministry of Transport is responsible for paying these credits to those seamen who were prisoners of war. The Inland Revenue does not do this because originally, in 1940–45, the then Ministry of War Transport collected the money itself instead of paying it to the Inland Revenue.
There is also a new kind of identity card to meet the requirements of the I.L.O., and this is costing £3,000 which, however, will eventually be recovered from the shipowners. Those are the principal reasons for the increases under Subhead H.
Under Subhead O, a certain amount was said about the additional £50,000 requited for the handling of explosives. Until the winter of 1952–53, the heavy traffic in Government explosives through London was handled at an anchorage at Holehaven, but at the beginning of 1953 the Home Office advised the Port of London Authority that, because of the rapid growth of oil installations on adjacent land, this anchorage was unsuitable from the point of view of safety. There was an alternative anchorage—the Chapman Light Anchorage—which was more favourable, but it could not be used throughout the winter because it was too exposed to the weather.
On the advice of the standing explosives committee, which deals with this in conjunction with the Ministry, it was decided as an urgent measure to use Cliffe Anchorage and provide the necessary facilities there, since it was an isolated place. We then entered into an agreement with the Port of London Authority whereby it provided facilities at a cost of £55,000 and the Ministry agreed to meet deficiencies arising from the operation of the installations,

together with the amortisation of the capital cost. The agreement was intended to last for 25 years starting in May, 1954.
However, in 1962, an oil company stated that it wished to develop an oil terminal near Cliffe Anchorage. It was decided that this would mean that the explosives ships arid the tankers would be too close together. The oil terminal is expected to bring in considerable revenue, and, what is more, there is a danger that if the oil company cannot develop the terminal there it will do so on the Continent. In these circumstances, the Ministry, on the advice of the working party, thought that we should not be justified in losing the oil terminal development in order to retain Cliffe Anchorage at a continuing and increasing cost to the State due to the decline in the traffic of Government explosives.
For that reason it was decided to terminate the use of Cliffe Anchorage. Agreement has been reached with the Port of London Authority for the payment by the Ministry of about £31,000 in full settlement of the remaining capital liability, together with the deficiencies that existed on 30th September, which amounted to just over £17,800. The total comes to £48,859.
I think that I have now come to the end—

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have not come to the end of my speech. I was about to say that I have dealt with the questions raised on the minor and subsidiary increases and would now like to turn to the question of nuclear ships.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that during my absence some of my hon. Friends wish to raise some of the items under Subheads B, F, L and M and I understand also that it was ruled that we could not debate reductions. That may well be the case, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have noticed that, in Subhead A, leaving out the figures and not discussing the reductions, it is stated that the cost was originally over-estimated.
We are entitled, without discussing the cost, to ask why the cost was originally over-estimated. Item L contains a reference to delay in the execution of the programme. I am not discussing the


figure, for I am well aware that we cannot debate decreases, but I want to know why there was delay in the execution of the programme. These items are worth explanation.

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) was not present when I read the appropriate passage from Erskine May. It would not be in order for the Minister to reply to those questions.

Mr. Shinwell: I contest that. I should like to have the whole of the Ruling before I accept that. I understand that we cannot debate the actual figures and that if there has been a reduction, that is not a matter for debate. But we are entitled to ask why the original cost was over-estimated, because that is a blunder by the Ministry. I am not concerned with the figure now, but we are entitled to question the Minister about his failure to estimate accurately. That is all.

The Temporary Chairman: That can be done on the Reports of the Estimates Committee, but not on Supplementary Estimates. My position is that I have to carry out the rules of the House, and under the rules the Minister would be out of order if he attempted to answer those questions.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. You chided me, Mr. Blackburn—I admit rather gently—about my remarks when I was interpreting some of these decreases as postponed payments. It would be very alarming indeed if the amount of the original expenditure set aside for Faslane had to be decreased.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am bound by your Ruling, Mr. Blackburn, or nothing would give me greater pleasure than to explain the Government's excellent reasons for these changes.

Mr. Loughlin: The Parliamentary Secretary gave us some explanation why the Government were involved in £30,000 compensation, plus other items, as a result of terminating an agreement about Cliffe Anchorage. The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave us a brief explanation about some oil company coming in at some point. I was not clear about it. Can he tell us more? Are we paying Government money to an oil

company and is there some alleged advantage in having the oil company use this place instead of going to the Continent? Did the oil company tell the Government that it would go to the Continent if the Government did not agree to this proposal?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Within the limits of the Supplementary Estimate, I cannot carry this very far. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that this is not the first occasion on which changes in ports, particularly connected with handling explosives, have been made in order to allow other major and important developments connected with refineries and oil terminals to be installed. It would be very wrong of the Government to block developments which usually bring considerable local employment with them, as well as considerable revenue to the country, merely because at the time the Government had an arrangement whereby their own explosives were handled in the area.

Mr. Loughlin: What additional local employment was brought in this instance?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That remains to he seen. That is a question which the hon. Member must put in due course to the Minister of Power. If he had listened to my statement, he would have heard that the application was made only during 1962. It is not without precedent and we naturally balance the convenience of the Government in handling explosives and the advantages to the locality in extra work and revenue and so forth.
I turn now to the nuclear questions and begin by saying something about Subhead I, a subject which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). The additional requirement of £4,000 has nothing to do with the items in Subhead J, and nothing to do with the development of future reactors for British marine vessels.
The position is that the Atomic Energy Authority is responsible for the safety of all land-based reactors. It also has to satisfy itself as to the safety of reactors in ships which may visit major British ports. In this work it acts as the agent of the Ministry of Transport. The present studies for which this money is required are concerned with the American ship


"Savannah" and are being carried out in co-operation with the responsible American authorities.
The need for the Supplementary Estimate arose because expenditure fell due rather later than had been expected. Provision had been made in a transfer between subheads in the Estimates for last year, but they were under-spent by £4,500, or so, and that had to be carried forward as a Supplementary Estimate to the Estimates for the current year. This work is by no means wasted, and I know that, as a result of the work of the Authority, a number of suggestions have been made and have been adopted by the American authorities.
I turn now to Subhead J, the compensation being paid to the tenderers, the main subject of today's debate. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall and others have asked questions which I shall do my best to answer. I was particularly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West for specifically asking whether this compensation could be taken as a precedent. I am glad to take the opportunity of saying at once that, for reasons which will come out as I develop the case, it is in no way a precedent. The circumstances were very unusual and we would not like this case to be thought to be a precedent.
If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) said that the Government spokesman had given the shipping industry the impression that nuclear merchant ships would be working in 1963. I can assure him that that is not so.

Mr. Pentland: What I was trying to convey was that that was the impression in the industry following the Prime Minister's announcement during the debate on the economic position and high unemployment, when he brought out of the blue the idea of a nuclear-propelled merchant ship, whose construction was to ease unemployment in areas such as the North-East and Scotland and Merseyside.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think that that construction can be placed on my right hon. Friend's words.
I will do my best to answer the questions about the past. I am somewhat inhibited from speaking about the future because that would certainly get me out of order. Perhaps I can say in pass-

ing, however, that a great research and development programme is as difficult to follow as the career of a successful politician. There is one respect in which they differ. Whereas the career of a politician depends upon a great deal of publicity, great research and development programmes are difficult to conduct with a loud running public commentary. That is particularly true where an element of commercial secrecy is involved as well, but I can at least assure the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West that we are taking this seriously; we are in deadly earnest over it.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) and the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) said that there had been great delays, and that this was proved by the Supplementary Estimate today. I entirely deny that. The speed of advance has been as fast as possible, but it is governed by matters which do not fall within the realm of Government control. It is governed largely by the progress of scientific knowledge and thought.
Perhaps I could remind the Committee of the background to this item in the Supplementary Estimate. It was in 1957 that the Nuclear Marine Committee was first set up under the chairmanship of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, commonly called the Galbraith Committee. It was at the end of 1959 that, on account of advice from that Committee, the Government decided, without any commitment to build a ship, that tenders should be invited from selected British firms for a boiling water reactor, and an organic liquid moderated reactor, complete with a propulsion unit suitable for installation in a 65,000 ton deadweight tanker. Accordingly, it was in February, 1960, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who had by that time assumed responsibility for the sponsorship of the shipbuilding industry, invited tenders from these five firms.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall asked why no condition had been put in the tenders that they should tender only for something that was economically viable. I think that that would have been an impossible condition. To begin with, a considerable amount of expert assessment of the tenders was required before they could be judged, and I do


not think that the firms of shipbuilders, marine engineers, and nuclear experts, were the people who were in the best position to judge this question, because this brought one into the realm of ship owning and the operation of ships.

Mr. Strauss: I did not ask why no condition had been made that the ship should be economically viable, but why there was no understanding or suggestion made during the discussion which preceded tendering that the purpose of the Admiralty was not to get ships which were economically viable, or that it was at that stage primarily interested in the viability of nuclear-powered ships.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should assume that there was no such understanding. After all, these tenders did not go out until after the Galbraith Committee had been in being for a long time. There had been endless discussions, and I am sure they were aware that the object was to produce an economic and cheap form of propulsion, and if the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back he will recall that many people at that time said that this could be done.
Perhaps I could answer one question which was put to me by a number of my hon. Friends. The five tendering groups were chosen because they were the only five firms which were putting forward the two types of reactor which at that time were required. These were the types which we thought most promising at that time. I assure the Committee that the payment of compensation to these firms in no way gives them any privilege regarding future contracts.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is missing out one phase, the exhibition which was held at the offices of the Board of Trade. How did the firms come into that? That was before 1960.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Some of the firms which were invited to tender were the firms which exhibited at that exhibition. That is the connection. There was an exhibition so that people interested could look at it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman went to it. I did. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central said he was given the impression

then that the whole thing could come forward at once. I do not know who gave him the impression, but there were many salesmen present at that exhibition.
An examination of these tenders, which was carried out by an expert subcommittee of the main committee, showed that neither of these two systems was capable of being developed as an economically attractive proposition. It would have been feasible technically to have built a ship with either of the reactor systems, but she would not have been economical in comparison with a conventional ship. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced in November, 1961, that the Government had decided not to accept any of the tenders but to authorise a vigorous programme of research into a reactor system which was economically attractive.
As a result of this announcement, each of the five tendering firms approached the Ministry asking for compensation for their costs incurred in the preparation of the tenders. The claims they put in were based on itemised and certificated statements of account prepared by their own firms of accountants, and in each case the basis of the claim was that they had tendered in good faith in the expectation that an order would be placed. They accepted that the Ministry was under no legal obligation in the matter. In the special circumstances of the case—and I shall go into this more fully later —authority was given for a sum of £250,000 to be paid by way of compensation. It was further decided that the simplest and fairest way of allocating this money between the firms was to pay an equal sum of £50,000 to each firm.

Mr. Pentland: With regard to the point about whether the new reactor systems would be economical or otherwise, is it not a fact that it still has to be proved that the reactor system which has been chosen will in the end prove to be an economic proposition?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That may or may not be so, but, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is nothing to do with this point on the Supplementary Estimate. We are dealing with something that happened quite a long time ago. The offers were made to the firms and they were conditional, among other things, on the Government retaining the


right to have free use of the tender designs. All five firms accepted the offer, and a payment of £50,000 was made to each firm between August and December last.
I should like to go in more detail into the reasons why the Government decided to compensate these firms. They claimed that it was reasonable on their part to assume, when the tenders were invited, that it was Government policy to proceed with the building of the first nuclear merchant ship, and it was not necessary to call for tenders just to demonstrate that that ship would not be economical. We do not accept that entirely, because it was made clear that there was no commitment to follow up these invitations by an order.
They then said that in any case the unusual scope and magnitude of the work and the cost involved in the preparation of the tenders in relation to the value of any possible contract were out of proportion to those normally encountered in this field. We accept that. They pointed out that there was no prospect of a continuing programme of construction which would enable them to recover their costs in due course. That is rather arguable.
They also pointed out with some truth that firms had already gone to considerable trouble in respect of previous studies, before the Galbraith Committee, for which they had not been paid. That had never been suggested, and they argued that what they were being asked to do was much more akin to a design study which would normally be paid for than an invitation to tender, and that again is true.
The Government did not necessarily accept the foregoing arguments in their entirety, particularly in view of the fact that a Press statement had been issued on 18th December, 1959, about six weeks before the tenders were invited, stating that when the tenders had been received the Government would decide whether an order should be placed, and so on. It was, however, accepted that these claims had some force. The tenders, moreover, had served the Government's purpose in providing sufficiently firm information on costs and technical problems, including safety and the development potential, to make a realistic decision based on the merits or otherwise of proceeding at once with the building of a nuclear ship.
It was therefore accepted that in the unusual circumstances the Government had at any rate a moral obligation to contribute to the firms costs in tendering. But we underline again that these circumstances were unusual, and we take the view that they form no precedent for similar cases that may arise in the future. Although the firms had not been told this, it had been recognised from the beginning—and it had been explained to the Treasury, which accepted it—that in the rather unusual circumstances, and in the light of the instructions given to the firms, the question of compensation would have to be considered in due course if no orders were placed.

Mr. Loughlin: We are entitled to as much information as possible on this matter, especially with regard to the weird departure from private enterprise that the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, in which the Government considered that the possibility of compensation had to be faced. This was before they invited the tenders. Does not that imply that the Government had no intention whatever of placing an order, irrespective of the tenders?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It implies nothing of the kind. It implies that there were some uncertainties in the matter, and some grave doubts whether any tender would prove sufficiently attractive to justify going forward with the vessel. The only alternative would have been to place development contracts, and that would have been a much more costly process at the end of the day.
Many hon. Members have asked whether any use has been made of the designs obtained under this scheme, and whether they have any bearing on the future work that remains to be done. That is not an easy question to answer. It is like asking a middle-aged man bow much use the algebra and Latin that he learnt at school have been to him in the course of his life. All that I can say is that the exercise enabled everyone concerned to obtain a very much better general appreciation of the problems that would be involved, especially with regard to safety, economics and detailed design. It cannot truthfully be said that this contributed directly, in a technical way, to the present design of reactors. On the other hand, it is fair to point out that as we get on to a more detailed stage there


may be little facets and features of the designs then tendered which will be of use to the people engaged on the present project.
One hon. Member asked whether it would not have been much better to give the Atomic Energy Authority a research grant in 1959 –60. That is a hypothetical question. The Authority was already undertaking marine research at the time. I invite hon. Members to look at the report which was roughly contemporary with the events leading to this Supplementary Estimate. If they do they will see that the Authority was continuing studies on these systems of reactors—the boiling water system and the steam-cooled heavy water system—for ships. These two processes were going forward together.
I hope that I have answered the points that have been raised. I have done my best to do so, and with that explanation I hope that the Committee will agree to the Supplementary Estimate.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I shall not speak for very long. I am sorry that the Minister did not make his explanation before the debate began, because throughout it there was something unreal, in that Members were making references to items although they were not able fully to grasp the precise implications of them. I want to make only one brief reference to the question of tendering, which formed the greater part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech.
As I see it, the Government invited these five firms, or consortia of firms, to tender for nuclear reactors. It was made clear to the firms that it did not necessarily follow that an order would be placed, but the firms tendered on the basis of an expectation that, in the event, an order would be placed; in other words, as far as I can see on the basis of the Minister's explanation, this was a normal business transaction in which the tendering firms expected to secure some ultimate advantage. In the end, however, the Government did not consider that it was possible to go ahead.
If any virtue at all is going to be claimed for the initiative of private enterprise—and surely that is the whole point

about private enterprise—if tenders are submitted and they are unsuccessful the firms concerned are not entitled to compensation, because they are operating on the basis of securing private profit. On that basis, any expense incurred in the preparation of a tender is a normal business risk.
It is no good the Minister's saying that this cannot be construed as a precedent. Of course it can, and it will. It means that in future, even though the Government give a clear indication to the firms concerned that they will not necessarily place an order, if they ask for tenders of any kind and the preparation of those tenders involves the firms concerned in any expenditure at all, if orders are not placed unsuccessful firms will be able to quote this instance and put forward a case to the Minister. The Minister has referred to the case put forward by the five tendering firms, part of which the Government agreed with and part of which they disagreed with. Of course firms will submit this kind of case against the Government in future.
The Minister says that no direct benefit has accrued as a result of these tenders, although in the ultimate they may get an idea or two. In those circumstances the Government cannot justify the payment of £250,000 of public money to people who entered into the fray on the basis of securing private profit but who, unfortunately, were not given the opportunity to make that profit. The Government are adopting a new principle here. It is no good hon. Members opposite talking about private enterprise and social ownership in future, because this is a racket. If this is the principle upon which private enterprise is to operate, this is a racket, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a party to it. Not only is he instituting a racket, he is making a rod for his own back. The hon. and gallant Gentleman smiles, but I will give way if he cares to rise to his feet and tell me that this is not a racket.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I was smiling, Mr. Blackburn, at the thought that if the hon. Gentleman calls this a racket, what would he call the decision of his own Government in 1946 to place public contracts for guided missiles which cost the country £40 million before we had finished?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) must not answer that.

Mr. Loughlin: No, Mr. Blackburn, and it may be to the advantage of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am not allowed to answer it. I was expecting him to come out with a reference to the groundnut scheme when I would have reminded him that every groundnut now has a Blue Streak"—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. A reference to groundnuts is also out of order.

Mr. Loughlin: I am making a passing reference, Mr. Blackburn, and I understood that in this Committee one could make a passing reference to anything.
The hon. Gentleman has to recognise that he is creating a precedent. He may stand up and say that he is not until he is blue in the face. But it will be used against him, and against future Governments, and it ought to be opposed.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have spoken too long already, but I should like to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). My understanding is that during the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates it is usual for a Minister to wait to hear the views of the Committee before replying to them.
On the main question, it is a matter of opinion. I gave the reasons why we thought that compensation was justifiable in this case and why we do not consider that it creates a precedent, as the conditions were unusual. The line adopted by the hon. Gentleman is perfectly possible as a theoretical line. But I think it a very hard and rigid one, and were it followed consistently those responsible at the time would have been forced into a very much more expensive alternative course of action which would have meant the placing of formal design contracts. In this way we have secured a good deal of information more cheaply than it could have been obtained in any other way open to the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £342,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day

of March 1963, for miscellaneous services connected with shipping, seamen, inland transport and ports, including the repair of damage by flood and tempest and certain special and other services.

Orders of the Day — Vote 7. Ministry of Aviation

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,750,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aviation for the administration of supply (including research, development and inspection), and of civil aviation; for contributions to two international organisations, a grant in aid, a conditional grant, and sundry other services.

Orders of the Day — RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: During the previous debate a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee complained of the lack of information about Supplementary Estimates. We must make the same complaint regarding this Vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) complained, with some justice, that there is an anomaly in that we are expected to pass Estimates running into hundreds of millions of £s but we are confined to discussing the Supplementary Estimates to them.
In this case, I think that is a greater anomaly than ever, because a huge proportion of the original Estimate and perhaps even a bigger portion of the Supplementary Estimate represents public money being expended by private enterprise. I do not complain necessarily about that. I see no other method of doing our business under existing conditions. But one feels that the machinery of the House of Commons has become totally inadequate when it comes to hon. Members obtaining information regarding these great sums of money which they are asked to vote.
The original Estimate was for £231,900,000, and now we are asked to make provision for a further £13,750,000 to make a total of £245,650,000. These are huge sums of money. Even confining myself, as I must, to the Supplementary Estimate we are asked to accept the need for a further £13,750,000 of public money—most of it to be expended by private enterprise—on the very small amount of information which


we can get from the Estimates or from questions regarding them.
I make no apology for asking the Parliamentary Secretary for a far greater amount of information about the need for this additional expenditure than we have yet heard. The biggest single item within this sum of £13,750,000 is the increase of £9,825,000 for research and development in outside industry. Anyone conversant with research and development knows how difficult it is to assess, at a given moment and within manageable proportions, the amount of money which is necessary. I do not wish to appear to be carping. But I believe that when year after year we see how wide of the mark we can be in our estimates for research and development, especially in connection with the Ministry of Aviation, it is necessary that hon. Members should have far greater facilities than they possess now to acquaint themselves with the reasons for these increases.
I am not complaining that the sum, in itself, is excessive, but I think it is for the Minister to show that the sum far which he is asking is justified by the results achieved, or the results which we may expect from the expenditure of this additional sum. As I have said, we cannot hope to estimate within a narrow proportion on ventures of this kind. But one notes that the amount allocated for research and development in private industry has gone up by the figure I have given and the amount allocated to the Ministry establishments has been revised downwards by £525,000. May we have an explanation of how it is that within the increased figure there is what I suppose could be described as a great mistake? In one footnote we see an explanation that there has been slower progress made in certain developments. May we have an explanation of the type of work on which the research and development side of the programme has made slower progress than in others? One is almost tempted to wonder whether some of the work previously allocated to the Ministry's own development teams has been handed to private industry for its research people to do the job, instead of the Ministry's.
Could we have an explanation as to the effort the Ministry is now making to

obtain a far closer supervision of research and development by industry itself? I am speaking, of course, of the allocation of public money to private enterprise. I am asking, in the light of the long experience we have now had, whether the Ministry is satisfied with the machinery at its disposal for examining research and development within the aircraft industry in this case, and whether it is making real efforts to eliminate unnecessary duplication which we all know goes on. What machinery is now in existence for the cancellation of projects which, after being placed out to industry, it is realised are not likely to justify the expenditure involved?
One feels, I think with some knowledge, that in many instances projects for which the Ministry has estimated—and, maybe, projects for which we are now being asked to vote Supplementary Estimates—will never mature to anything which will be tangible in the economic life of the country. In many instances the research and development for which we are asked to pay goes on long beyond the point at which there could be an adequate return for the Estimates we are now asked to pass. Conversely, there may well be—I think there are—instances in which because of a shortage of money for R. and D. many worth-while projects may be abandoned, whereas a little more expenditure would bring to fruition a very successful project.
My feeling is that we have not yet got the kind of machinery within the industry which would give us the right answer to questions of that type. One notices in the N.E.D.C. Report a recommendation that fuller investigation is needed about whether Britain is devoting enough to research and development to support real economic growth and whether a better way can be found of deciding how the State can best invest its money in research with a view to getting the best economic and social returns. That is one of the recommendations which the N.E.D.C. has produced. It is a fairly substantial point which certainly has relevance to the problems we are discussing within the Ministry of Aviation. I suppose that it, of all the Ministries, is asked to dispense public money to private enterprise on an extremely lavish scale.
None of us in this Committee grudges expenditure on research and development


when we can feel that an adequate return is possible—I put it no higher than that—but when we are considering a Supplementary Estimate for a considerable sum we are provided with no particular yardstick by which we can measure the returns which we hope we shall receive. Within the Estimate we see the project of the European Launcher Development Organisation. One of the items is for £6,100,000 for work done by industry on behalf of E.L.D.O. I should like the Minister to tell us what guarantees we have that this high expenditure is to lead to anything tangible for Britain.
One reads disquieting items in the newspapers in these days to the effect that there is considerable doubt whether the E.L.D.O. project will ever come to fruition. It is relevant when we are asked to vote this amount of money to ask the Government to give us information, which only they can give, as to the possibilities which may be expected from such expenditure.
I have looked through the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman, now the Minister of Defence, made in this House on 16th April, 1962, when he told us that the Convention to bring E.L.D.O. into being had been signed by seven Governments. He strung off the names of the various Governments and pointed out the stages of the development. They would include, in the first stage anyway, a British rocket—Blue Streak—and other nations would take the second and third stages and so on. I understand it is the case that of those seven Governments listed by the right hon. Gentleman so far only one has ratified the Convention. That is the Australian Government.
Unfortunately, according to Article 18 of the Convention, that is the one Government which is not expected to pay any money. If we reach a situation in which of seven Governments one is not expected to pay any money towards the project and that Government is the only one which ratifies the Convention, that is not exactly the best of all guarantees of solvency for the rest of the membership. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation cannot expect this Committee to grant a Supplementary Estimate containing a very appreciable sum of money for this project unless he gives more information as to the possibilities of an adequate return.
The Times yesterday—sometimes The Times is right on these matters—told us that a certain meeting took place at Chequers during the weekend. A communiqué was issued from the Ministry of Aviation telling us that:
The results of the rationalization of the industry up to date and its relation to Government were reviewed. The military, civil and space programmes were considered. Action on the matters discussed will be taken through the normal channels.
If my guess is right, that after all this time only the Australian Government have ratified the Convention and even the British Government, which initiated the project, has riot yet ratified it, it would be very remiss of hon. Members to pass this Supplementary Estimate before we had a far greater assurance from the hon. Gentleman about the possibilities of E.L.D.O. than we have at the moment.
It begins to look dangerously as if not only was Blue Streak to be the first section of the new rocket for E.L.D.O. but suspiciously like it being the last stage as well. I do not know if the Minister of Defence was trying to justify the terrific expenditure which the nation had to incur in the production of Blue Streak and was, therefore, rather desperate to get on with the matter and put across the propaganda line which we all heard for so long, or, having done that, that the Government are now reconciled to the fact that E.L.D.O. will not become a going concern.
As to some of our partners in E.L.D.O., the French are now going ahead with their own S.E.R.E.B. Diamant and hope to launch their first satellite in two years' time, one year ahead of the first E.L.D.O. satellite which could possibly be sent up from Woomera. We know from the newspapers that the Germans are not in the least happy about E.L.D.O. They signed the original Convention, but they have not ratified it. They are already arguing that we would merely be duplicating a very great deal of the work which the Americans have already done on this type of satellite production.
We understand that Italy is also making her own arrangements to launch her own satellite with American rockets. Added to that, we hear reports that our own Cabinet has now decided to place contracts with British firms to build our own


satellite for bouncing radio and T.V. signals around the world. In view of this, I must say that the House of Commons is not being treated with the respect with which it has a right to expect to be treated when we are presented with a Supplementary Estimate containing large sums for E.L.D.O., although the signatories to the original Convention, including our own Government, are in no hurry to ratify the Convention and apparently are all going ahead with their own projects to what must obviously be the detriment of the E.L.D.O. scheme.
I have not said these things because I do not wish to see Britain playing an adequate part in new communications systems. On the contrary. I had said them because I want to see us holding our own in this kind of new development. We know that the future of communications by the Post Office—I am thinking in terms of Commonwealth links—may well depend on our ability to produce our own satellite comparable with Telstar. In this respect, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any assessment has been made of the comparative costs of producing our own satellite within our own communications system, as distinct from the more conventional cable-laying activities common to this type of communication. I should like to be informed whether there are any figures which would enlighten us on the comparative costs.
I have here an article from the Economist of 14th July, 1962. I will not go through it now. It discusses costing in this sense. It is not pessimistic. It takes the view that, given a sufficient outlay on a thoroughly competent satellite of this type, it might well be a paying proposition as distinct from cables, and would certainly save us from the colossal expense of having to use other nations' communications systems, such as the system which the Americans are now perfecting.
We on this side are not opposing new conceptions of this type. Indeed, I have said many times that a nation such as ours, bereft of indigenous raw materials, must rely for the future almost wholly upon our ability to sell brains and not merely produce third-rate goods which other nations can produce. This is the future of a nation with fifty million-odd people on a small island with a great

background of skill, knowledge and know-how. Unless we can get one jump ahead in modern technology and the application of research and development to new industries, it is hypocritical to say that we can demand a decent living standard in an island like this.
I am not querying the Supplementary Estimates from a carping point of view, from the desire always to argue that the Government should never present the Committee with Supplementary Estimates, especially on important industrial developments of this type. I do not take that view. Nor do I argue that we must always expect exact estimates at a given time. I know that that is impossible. However, I think that the Committee is entitled to know the answers to some of the questions I have asked. I hope that we are not going to be fobbed off with the statement that we are part of a great European project, which I do not believe will ever come to fruition. If we take that attitude, we shall not be adapting ourselves to make the effort which I think is necessary if Britain is to keep abreast of these great and vital changes which are now taking place.
I therefore hope that when replying the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself to these very important matters. I do not expect him at this stage to tell us whether the Cabinet has made the decision which it has been suggested it has made. I warn the hon. Gentleman that we shall take a very serious view if in a year or two's time, after having brought before the Committee these Supplementary Estimates which give the world the idea that Britain is serious in putting her resources into E.L.D.O., we are told that not only has the originator of the scheme lost all faith in it, but that as other nations are not ratifying the Convention we ourselves are using that as a pretext to come out. That would not be treating the House of Commons in a proper manner in relation to such Supplementary Estimates.
For these reasons, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say as much as he can at this time on those aspects of the Supplementary Estimate on which I have touched. Other hon. Members may well want to concentrate on other items within the Supplementary Estimate. For my part, I shall be very disappointed unless I receive satisfactory answers to these points.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). To a large extent I agreed with him. If we in this island are to continue to live comfortably and, I hope, prosperously, we must keep well ahead of other countries in technology. In that race this country must encourage its inventions. In this very important task the Government must give every assistance which they reasonably can.
In research and development it is always difficult to estimate ahead. It is said that a project may cost £X, and the work goes ahead on that basis. Perhaps it does cost £X. However, there may come a time when it is said, "We have not done quite as well as was expected". Then the difficult decision has to be made whether to write the project off because it will cost too much, whether to cut the project down, or whether to put more money into it and go back to the House of Commons with a Supplementary Estimate. It must always be remembered that the best of inventions nowadays takes so long to develop that when it finally works somebody else may well have a better one. We must not be left behind in this race. I fully understand why the Government have to come to the Committee and ask for Supplementary Estimates on a number of items.
I have one or two questions to ask upon the general principles. There are payments made to private firms which very efficiently do a large amount of work on these projects. Is the relationship this? The Government want some form of invention, be it a guided missile or a manned aeroplane, and say to a firm dealing with such matters, "This is our idea. Can you do research for us and quote us a price for the research?" Or is it that a firm comes to the Government and says, "We have a certain idea on the drawing board. We cannot take the enormous risk of proceeding with the experiment from our own finances and we would like some Government support. Of course, if it becomes successful the Government can have the advantage of placing an order and having the goods delivered to them, either for military or civil purposes." I am keeping strictly off technical points, because I do not have the technical knowledge to develop this

further and to discuss how a particular article is made.
It is interesting to note that Subhead L contains a grant to Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland Limited. I am not criticising that, for I realise the importance of that firm. It operates in an area which is suffering—I hope temporarily—a small degree of unemployment, and I agree that everything should be done to keep the company going, as long as it is efficient. However, I should like some more details about this grant. For instance, is it a loan to enable Shorts to carry on, is it a payment in advance of work not yet completed or is it a grant—a present given to the firm to increase its capital—which will not be returned at a later date? I am simply asking for information and am in no sense criticising what I strongly suspect is a wise decision on the part of the Government. I will leave this matter, because we can, if we wish, return to it later.
I turn to Subhead D1 which deals with the European Launcher Development Organisation. Hon. Members should be given more information about this because we are being asked to vote a considerable sum of money. Will this Convention be ratified? We know that certain European countries are anxious to follow what I might call the "go-it-alone" principle, but if this plan is successful what advantages will this country get out of it, military or civil? Will we be given the fullest information or will we merely be a seventh partner in the organisation? What are the anticipated costs by way of Supplementary Estimates, and what are the prospects of it being brought to a successful conclusion? Will it be successfuly concluded in time for it to have a practical use, always remembering that inventions are quickly superseded these days?
I appreciate the difficulty of estimating ahead and I know that costs and wages are continually going up. I realise that the highly-skilled people involved in this work are entitled to proper remuneration. It is important that we in this island and the firms interested in modern inventions—and there are enough of them now, it would seem—should be always pressing ahead to ensure that we remain in advance of other nations. Only that way can we obtain orders and, thereby, maintain a high standard of living by our


exports. It is necessary for the Government to support firms doing this work, but they should support them wisely to ensure that the country's money is not wasted.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am particularly interested in the subject of research and development and I wish to some extent to follow what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) about the intangibles which surround this subject. One must approach this matter remembering that whatever research or development is undertaken in any sphere it is never a complete loss. Something is always learned by someone, even if the project involves new alloys or steels to enable metals to withstand various temperatures and high compressions.
In such cases it is usually up to the executives and others in private establishments to spot and sort out the results of the research and to see how they can be usefully applied, not necessarily in the sphere in which the research was undertaken. This is an important feature of any industrial establishment and many of the best ideas are applied in spheres different from the one in which the actual research first took place.
It is no wonder that some of the wording of the Supplementary Estimate, particularly in the modern age in which we live, is rather surprising. We find, for instance, an increase of £9,825,000 under the general heading of "Research and development work by industry". It seems that the main cost of the increase has arisen because bills have been presented for payment quicker than had been expected, coupled with increases in pay and prices. The increased prices refer, I imagine, to raw materials and not to the cost of the research work as such. Nevertheless, there is no indication in the words used in Subhead C1 that more research is being done, and I should like a break-down of the figures so that the country in general and the Committee in particular can be sure of how the increase of £9,825,000 has arisen, for it seems a much greater sum than could have resulted merely from industrial companies presenting their bills more quickly.
Since I find it a rather amazing reason to be given—that bills are being presented

more quickly than had been expected—I hope that we will be told exactly what increases are represented in the figure of £9,825,000. Does it mean that deliveries are being made more speedily to the Ministry of Aviation? I hope that we shall be given an assurance that the Ministry is not being turned into a sort of bank to consume excess ancillary products that come under the general heading of "research and development". All sorts of things could be involved in this, and I should like to know if it is simply a question of goods having been delivered more quickly or whether there has been a falling off in industrial activity, leading to more products being loaded upon State Departments.
I want to be certain about this because it is a rather delicate problem. I do not wish to be unfair to anyone or to make any unjust allegations. I am merely seeking the facts, for we are the custodians of the public purse. I am anxious to know if the increase of £9,825,000 has resulted because certain units have suffered a decrease in domestic orders, so to speak, and have sought to deliver at a faster rate to Government Departments. If so, can we be certain that the research is being done not purely in the interests of private industrial units? We want to be certain that this has not arisen merely because of slackness of trade, a falling off in orders or the recession we have had in the last two years.
Many of us know how, in slack times, extra work is piled on to a Government order, or put into a department dealing with Government work. It is an old habit to use Government Departments as a bank, as it were, for surplus resources. I feel that in this reference to some bills having been presented for payment more quickly may be detected some of those vicious practices of the past, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure us on that score.
We also see an increased provision for research and development establishments. Does the National Research and Development Corporation play any part in research work for the Ministry of Aviation? The Corporation comes under the Board of Trade, and deals with research and development for all sorts of commercial and civilian products. That is its function, and the 1962 Report shows that it has done research in


biology, science, chemistry and mechanical engineering. It is a Government institution, financed by the Board of Trade, and it could surely do a great deal of research and development work that would be as helpful to the Ministry as other work has been to British industry.
We must use our State resources not only for the defence of the country but for furthering the capacity of our industries to meet competition and to export products that are superior in quality to those of any other nation. We should finance any institution that is equipped to do that sort of thing. I believe that the National Research and Development Corporation is such an institution, but I do not find any mention of its being in receipt, as an institution, of any of this money from the Ministry. It should, because I have no doubt at all that it can play a very valuable part.
I do not know whether the D.S.I.R. gets any financial aid from the Department, but, in any case, I doubt whether it does that sort of research. It does fundamental research, which is quite different from the field work with which we are here dealing.
It is that sort of thing that worries me about this Supplementary Estimate. I should like to see the amount put as high as the nation can afford, because our future depends on the sacrifices we are prepared to make in order to undertake research and development in every realm where we have to earn our living. Otherwise, we shall fall behind, and will not create the climate, conditions and facilities necessary to make proper use of our young scientists from the universities. The main complaint of all young people with scientific and engineering qualifications whom I meet is always, not that they are underpaid but that resources and facilities are not made available to them. A group of young scientists have told me that their reason for wanting to go to the United States is not that they will get better pay—not at all—but that the research and development establishments over there have much more equipment.
That is the great thing. We, of our age, should encourage young people to seek more resources to exploit and develop. They should not be encouraged necessarily to seek more personal income at their time of life—they can think of

all that later. They want more resources to work on, and more development to do. That is very important to young people, especially creative young people.
I therefore hope that we can be assured that the Ministry is using the N.R.D.C., which has an ever-increasingly important part to play, and I hope that no money will be spared to provide all the necessary instruments of research and development so that our young scientists from the universities can find first-class equipment to use in our institutions. If that is done, I am confident that what the country does in the future will compare with anything that has been done in the past.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: If I understood the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) aright, he said that he would be delighted to vote for even greater amounts than appear in this Vote provided they were canalised in certain directions, very much agree with what he said. I am sorry that I did not hear the previous speeches—unfortunately I was delayed outside the Chamber—because, as hon. Members know, I regard research and development as of extreme importance.
I find it difficult to get at the facts as itemised in these pages. The figures seem to be so presented as to conceal something. We all know that in reality that is not the case, but this is a research and development Vote and I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly what we are doing in that direction. By and large, in relation to the Ministry's job the total amount we appear to be spending on research is completely inadequate if we are to keep, if not in the vanguard, at least catching up with what is happening in the outside world.
I suppose we all know that one of the major problems in the Armed Services today—in fact, in any major development in the science of electronics, nucleonics or computers—is the supreme difficulty of recruiting young men and women fresh from college, university and technical school who are prepared to devote their formative years in research on British products. The student, or the professor, does not necessarily emphasise the condition of vast pay. What the average researcher really wants is pride in his job, the knowledge that he is doing


something really worth while, that his work leads to a positive end, that the people for whom and with whom he is working really know what they are doing, and that there is an end object.
A noble Lord for whom I have the utmost affection, regard and respect has complained in another place about the United States removing from this country some of our most brilliant brains. Even concerning the Ministry of Aviation that is desperately true, because the man who has the most to do with the development of radar is working in the United States right now. In fact, without his presence there some of the fantastic things that are happening in, shall I say, outer space would not have been possible. That is equally true of medicine, but this is not a Vote concerning doctors. But it is very true in the world of computers, it is frightfully true in the world of nucleonics, and it is perhaps one of the things on which in future Estimates the Ministry of Aviation and the men in Whitehall will, in my opinion, have to revise their outlook and really get modern.
Our problem in the world of research is quite a simple one. We have not the fantastic funds that the United States have—but then Britain never did have—but we have a natural ability and natural facility for producing better things at cheaper cost, provided we have the courage to give our researchers and the people engaged in it what one might call a reasonably free rein. On the other hand, when I look at the Supplementary Estimate and see how our research is distributed, I do not feel as happy as I should like to feel—far from it.
I was rather pleased to see the reference to the proposed expenditure on the European Launcher Development Organisation. I should like the Minister to tell us what, in fact, is the position. Have we ratified our agreement with E.L.D.O. on this matter? Do we intend to ratify it? In what form is our contribution to be made? Or are we, perhaps, going to realise that before we expend a lot of money we should be infinitely wiser to do the whole thing ourselves and use some of our research and design staff so desperately needing confidence in the future for that purpose?
I particularly want to say a few words about the grant to Short Bros. and Harland. There we have, in my opinion, a major problem, not only of employment in Northern Ireland, but of confidence in the future of some extremely brilliant workers and one of the best design staffs in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will give some indication before we pass this Vote in which form the Ministry of Aviation intends in future to canalise and direct our research workers. We all know, for instance, that at Farnborough we have some of the most peerless technical brains that exist in the world, and I personally would sound a note of warning. I am fully aware that some of our best brains in this country may willy-nilly feel compelled to leave this island and take up residence in the United States for the simple reason that wherever they look in March, 1963, there is no centrally directed canalised research organisation for the various phases and the various challenges that we have to meet.
I do not want to take up the time of other hon. Members who, I am sure, are anxious to speak on this matter. On the other hand, I am deeply sensitive to the fact that the young men and women in our grammar schools and leaving the universities are looking for something to believe in and something to which they can dedicate their future. I hope, therefore, that some of the remarks that I have made will prompt the Minister to give us some insight into how this money will be spent.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I find myself in almost complete agreement with the sentiments which have been expressed on both sides of the Committee with regard to the Supplementary Estimate of the Ministry of Aviation which we are being asked to pass. I regard it as one of the most important and one of the most significant in the batch of Supplementary and Civil Estimates for 1962–63, and I think it is very appropriate that the Committee should spend some time in discussing both the significance and the implications of this Supplementary Estimate. I think that the Committee is entitled to do that not because it wants to cavil at or oppose the Government's request for this additional Vote, but because the Committee is sensitive of the supreme


importance of this effort, and also because I think the Committee and the country are very desirous of having much more information about it than has been vouchsafed at present.
The Committee will be aware that in this Supplementary Estimate, apart from the Short Bros. item, which I do not propose to go into, there are two particular Supplementary Estimates which excite interest and attention. There is one for an increase in Vote C.1 of £9,825,000 for research and development work by industry. This is because it is now proposed to revise the original provision of £177 million to approximately £186½ million. The other item is entirely new because it is proposed by the Supplementary Estimate to Vote just over £6 million for the European Launcher Development Organisation for which only a nominal item of £10 was included in the original Estimate.
May I take these two items in sequence? First, I think that the Committee will agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) said about the supreme importance to this country of research in industry. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, taking a long view, our national fortunes may well depend on the extent to which our scientists and our technicians gear themselves to the opportunities and possibilities of the next decade or so.
In every realm of science, particularly in the realms of nuclear science, electronics, computer research and so forth, I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he regards this increased Vote as sufficient to do anything to stem the tide of emigration of senior scientists from this country, about which we have all been so shocked to learn recently in the Report published by the Royal Academy.
When I had a Question on the Order Paper to the Prime Minister a week or so ago I was shocked at the apparent complacency of the right hon. Gentleman about this growing tide of emigration. The Prime Minister pointed out that it was not only to the United States. He seemed to think that it was some excuse or mitigation that a large part of the emigration went to Commonwealth countries. I dare say that it does, but where-ever it goes, whether to the United States

or to Commonwealth countries, does nothing to weaken the arguments put forward in that trenchant Report by the Royal Academy. It pointed out that this loss of highly trained senior scientists had not only very serious economic consequences for the country, because large sums had been invested in training them, but it seriously affected our competitive power with other countries in a sphere in which it is essential that we should be predominant and pre-eminent in the next few years.
I agree with what hon. Members have said, and from my own experience I know that to those with whom I have talked on this subject it is not merely, if indeed at all, higher salaries and rewards overseas that tempt a large number of our most highly trained scientists to emigrate. A far more potent reason is their feeling that they have greater opportunities and facilities in the United States and elsewhere for developing techniques. They have the apparatus and the equipment that they want. They have the facilities for getting on with their research, and they do not feel so handicapped as they do here by obstacles of one kind and another.
In that context I wonder whether this increase of about £10 million, which is only about 2 per cent. of the original Estimate, is enough to allay growing concern on this subject. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about this, because it has produced considerable alarm. I hope that he will also be able to answer some of the questions which my hon. Friends have posed, and others which I shall ask, so that we may know in greater detail how this additional money will be spent.
Am I right in thinking that, although it is on the Ministry of Aviation Vote, some part of it will be applied through other channels such as, for example, the D.S.I.R. and the universities? The vital question is whether the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that there is an ideal system of co-ordination in research today between the universities and the research establishments under the Minister's jurisdiction. I doubt whether some of the professors of applied science in some of our leading universities would think that there is. But if we are to succeed in these activities it is most important that there should be the closest co-operation


and co-ordination between the universities, the advanced colleges of technology, and the Minister. It would be very regrettable if students who obtained these higher degrees in the universities felt themselves thwarted from working for the Ministry of Aviation because they thought that there were greater opportunities and possibilities overseas.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend will find on page 91 of the Supplementary Estimates under B.1. a reference to:
Research and development establishments: salaries and wages etc.
Under this heading there is an increased Supplementary Estimate and a subtitle which reads:
Increased rates of pay offset by reduction in staff.
Surely this is the policy which the Government are pursuing and not the one which my hon. Friend is now advocating.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that interjection. It is a valid point. I always find it difficult to appreciate the precise significance of the way in which some of these Supplementary Estimates are prepared. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what is the precise relationship between the proposed increase under B.1 of £225,000, compared with the increase of nearly £10 million for research and development work by industry. Is any part of the sum of nearly £10 million to be applied to salaries and wages? If not, how is it to be applied? Will it all go on equipment and apparatus? If some part is to go on salaries and wages, what is the point of dividing the Estimates between B.1 and C.1?
Would I be justified in saying that B1 is confined to research and development at Ministry establishments whereas Cl relates to research and development by industry generally for which the Ministry of Aviation is responsible? If that is the explanation, would the Parliamentary Secretary explain why it is that for research and development at the Ministry's own establishment the increased rates of pay as offset by reductions in staff? Is it the Ministry's policy now to reduce its own research and development at Ministry establishments and apply more money and channel part of this £10 million through other organisations and establishments? If so, what

is the implication of that policy? I should like to know particularly how much of this expenditure is applied to the D.S.I.R. and how much is channelled to universities and similar organisations?
I now come to an Estimate which is of at least equal interest to the Committee and that is the proposed Vote for the first time of £6,100,000 for the European Launcher Development Organisation, which for convenience is sometimes referred to as E.L.D.O. The Committee, and indeed the country, know very little about this development. Here is an ideal opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us much more about it. All we know so far is that on 16th April last the Minister of Defence announced that the Convention for the establishment of this European Launcher Development Organisation had been signed. Incidentally, although it is called a European organisation, the Convention was signed not only by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, but also by the Government of Australia. As I understand, it is out of date. The only country which has ratified the Convention is Australia. I understand that none of the European Governments has yet ratified it.
Therefore, the relevant questions which we should ask the Minister are these. Is it the Government's intention to ratify the Convention and, if so, when? Can the Minister tell us the latest news about the intentions of any of the other European Governments to ratify the Convention? Does the Minister think that the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations recently will be a deterrent to France or to any of the other Common Market countries in their attitude to E.L.D.O.? What, for example, is the attitude of President de Gaulle to E.L.D.O. now compared with April, 1962? This question, as I am sure the Committee will realise, is very pertinent because, whether or not E.L.D.O. was a good thing in conception, and although this Committee is being asked to vote £6 million towards it, the degree of influence which we seem to have in E.L.D.O. is extremely tenuous and nebulous.
The Minister of Defence said with regard to the initial programme that a French rocket would be used at the second stage. He said that the third stage would


be developed under the leadership of the Federal Republic of Germany and that
The design, development and construction of the first series of satellite test vehicles will be carried out under the leadership of the Italian Republic, and the equipment for the ground guidance stations under the leadership of Belgium and of the long range telemetry links under the leadership of the Netherlands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 7.]
The launcher devices at Woomera were going to be used.
This may have been a very fine conception, but it is pertinent to observe that the prospects of European co-operation on this scale were, presumably, much rosier a year ago, when we had a reasonable prospect of entering the Common Market and having an economic association, if not a close political association, with the other Common Market nations. But no proposal was made in the original Estimates about making a contribution to E.L.D.O. It is only now, a year after the Convention was signed, that the Minister proposes that we should pass this Vote of £6 million.
We are, therefore, entitled to know whether the Minister is as satisfied as he was a year ago that this degree of European co-operation and integration is as feasible as it seemed then. Why are we being asked to accept a Supplementary Vote before the Government have ratified the Convention or before any other European nation has ratified it?
In asking these questions, I do not wish it to be thought that I am saying one word in derogation of the ideal of space research. I think that space research is all important. Anyone who recognises the fantastic developments by the United States and Soviet Russia in recent years in space research, in satellites circling not only this planet but other planets, and such novel developments as Telstar and all the possibilities which it opens up of revolutionary concepts in communications must be conscious of the immense importance of space research, not merely as an academic exercise but as something which has within it the possibility of revolutionising our present conception of world communication, whether by telephone, television or methods not yet understood or fully developed.

Mr. John Eden: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying and

support the sentiments which he has been expressing, but I am sure that he will recognise the difficulty in trying to keep a balance in all the demands made on us. I think that he will accept that each of us, as a member of this Committee, must look over the whole range of expenditure. The largest Supplementary Estimate, although it has not been selected for discussion, is £25 million for National Assistance. Does not he think that there is some significance in this fact in trying to keep the balance between, on the one hand, encouraging the sort of developments which he has called for and, on the other, ensuring social justice and meeting all the other demands made on the Exchequer?

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not regard the two Supplementary Estimates as in any way inconsistent. I do not think that there is any inconsistency between—

Mr. Eden: No; I am not suggesting that there is.

Mr. Fletcher: I do riot think that the hon. Gentleman suggests that there is any inconsistency here. I think that he is saying that it is necessary to keep these two things in perspective, which I am trying to do. I do not think any hon. Member opposes the proposed increase in the Estimate for National Assistance. I certainly do not. It is not out of perspective for the Government to propose this increased expenditure on research and on National Assistance. However, taking a long-term view, I am sure that we shall not be able to afford adequate National Assistance, adequate social justice or an adequate standard of living for our people unless we are in the forefront of technical research.
Although our geographical position still gives us certain advantages, the history of the last few years shows that some of the other historical advantages on which we have depended no longer exist. However, I believe that the insular genius of this country has resided for a long time past, and still resides, in the capacity, energy and inventive outlook of our leading scientists. It is more essential in the scientific field than in any other field that the Government should give a lead and stimulus so that we can take the fullest advantage of reaping the


rewards which I am sure will be open to us as a country if we take time by the forelock and do not stint the expenditure which is necessary at this stage.
What I wish to know is whether this or any other amount of money is better spent in this form or in some other form. Does the Minister still think, as the Minister of Defence apparently thought a year ago, that the best contribution to space research is by being a member of the Convention, which has not yet been ratified? Are we, or are we not, prejudicing our chances of independent effort in space research by participating in this joint programme?
None of us can answer these questions unless the Minister tells us how far the project envisaged in E.L.D.O. a year ago has gone. Has it started? Has it been ratified? How much of the preliminary work has been done? The Convention, which I have read, contains a great many expressions of pious hope about what might be done, but it is nebulous. What we want at this stage is concrete facts. Would we be better off if we spent more money on our own space research, if necessary with Australia and other Commonwealth countries? These are the problems to which the House of Commons should address itself. We do not quarrel with the expenditure of money—we all realise the vital necessity of it—but we are anxious to ensure that the money is being spent in the best possible way.

8.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): I should like to thank my many hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who have made such pleasant contributions to the debate. In asking the Committee to vote an extra sum for aviation, I should like, first, to explain the reasons for the increases in expenditure on research and development work by industry, which is the subject of the Vote, and then deal with the much-discussed European Launcher Development Organisation. If I do not answer all the many questions which have been put to me, I will certainly follow them up; it may be that I am limited in time, since another debate is to follow, or because I do not have the answers with me.
Many hon. Members have asked what we are doing with this money on research

and development. They want more details about it. I recognise this difficulty. It was raised in the debate yesterday on the Air Estimates. As hon. Members opposite then recognised, difficulty arises when one is dealing with a lot of projects which are secret, some of which are confidential and many of which involve commercial contracts. Is it right, for example, to divulge the details of secret, confidential or commercial contracts in the House of Commons? I understand the difficulties of hon. Members. How to overcome this real problem is perhaps, worthy, of discussion outside this Chamber.
As will be seen from the Supplementary Estimates, under Subhead Cl the cost of research and development work by industry has risen from £168·7 million to £177·2 million, an increase of £8·5 million. The remainder of the expenditure is on Australia and on the items in paragraphs (3) and (4).
I must first explain that £4·3 million of the £8·5 million is due to two items which are not directly research and development. This probably answers the points made tonight by many hon. Members.
The first of those two items is the engineering wage award, colloquially known as the 3 per cent.—It was, in fact, 3·1 per cent.—which operated from 9th July, 1962. During the current year that will cost an extra £2·3 million. The second item, to which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) particularly referred, is that of prompt payment and it amounts to about £2 million. As the hon. Member said, some bills for development work are being presented for payment more quickly than hitherto.
In making estimates of annual cash requirements, we have to make certain assumptions about the rate at which these bills are presented. Over the last year, there has been a noticeable speeding up of this process. I believe that this is partly due to beneficial changes in the reorganisation of the aircraft industry. The industry is coming round to getting itself together and taking the best from one unit of production and passing it on to the next. I believe that we are now seeing in this way the effect of the amalgamation of firms. We have to bear in mind that this desire for prompter payment is a once-for-all operation and will


not affect the eventual cost of the work under contract. We under-provided for this trend of prompter billing to the extent of £2 million. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East asked whether the Ministry was acting as banker in this connection. If I understood the hon. Member's argument correctly, I do not think we are.
To return to the Supplementary Estimate on actual research and development work in industry, one must subtract from the £8·5 million the £2·3 million for wages and the £2 million for prompter payment. One is then left with the true figure on research and development, which amounts to £4·2 million as the actual increase on research and development costs. That is what we have been discussing tonight in this context.
That represents an increase, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said, of less than 2½ per cent., which, out of a total of £168·7 million, and in view of the complexity, magnitude and variety of projects, is not at all bad. Here, of course, we are dealing with total expenditure, and this modest increase includes under-estimating on some projects being balanced against overestimating on others.
The Committee is familiar with the difficulties of estimating total development costs of projects, and I do not want to weary hon. Members with a complete lecture on that subject. Other countries face exactly the same problem. We find that assessing how much we are to spend in a particular year on a particular project is easier than estimating the total cost. The record of the Ministry of Aviation, taking one year with another, and bearing in mind the magnitude of the problem, has been good.
Over the last eight years, taking the figures for the Vote—we have been only one-tenth of 1 per cent. overspent. I think that great credit is due to the Ministry for this result.

Mr. Lee: But, in fairness, one should add that we did not necessarily get all the hardware we estimated for.

Mr. Marten: That is a fair point. Nevertheless, out of a net total of £1,750 million over the last eight years, our Estimates have been out by £2 million only.
In each major project, there are a number of subsidiary development programmes going on in various companies. For example, the development of a major combat aircraft usually involves very large effort in the development of navigational equipment, weapons, radar and a multitude of smaller components. If a difficulty arises on any one of these, it can have serious repercussions throughout the whole system and affect the cost estimates for the whole project, while, of course, any delay caused by one of these faults or snags adds to the time scale and therefore to the bill for wages.
When confronted by increased spending on a project in a particular year, we have two courses open to us, short of cancellation. First, we can hold the annual expenditure to the level for which Parliament has given authority, but if we do so it may well have a chain reaction throughout the whole project and will certainly mean a slippage of deilvery dates and a probable increase in the ultimate cost. If we take the second course, however, we can accept that our previous estimates were wrong and approach Parliament for more money to enable us to maintain the momentum of the development.
The disadvantages of the first course need no emphasising, and we are now following the second in asking the Committee for an increase which is less than 2½ per cent. What did the Ministry do when it saw this possible Supplementary Estimate coming up? Faced by the prospect of net over-spending on this Vote, the Ministry went through the whole programme under discussion in the middle of 1962 and, wherever there was scope for deferring or slowing down work without significantly interfering with the needs of the Services, we did so. No one can estimate with complete accuracy individual costs on research and development projects. The programme must be kept flexible in order to permit changes in requirements, largely by the Services, or improved methods. As the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East so rightly said, many of these modifications which have to be made produce great technological benefits, but no one, or no country, has found the answer to this problem. One starts off with the basic plan and if the sole desire is to stick doggedly to


it one will restrict flexibility and the project will probably suffer.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) asked about closer supervision, and I can assure him that many methods of close supervision are operated by the Ministry. I think that the smallness of this Supplementary Estimate justifies those methods.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East also asked about the cost of research and wanted to know whether the Government got anything back on what they provided for private industry. The answer is that the Government do. For example, the Government get back a levy on the sale of an aero-engine based partly on Government money in research.—[An HON. MEMBER: "How much?"] The amount varies and is negotiated in the contract when the development is proposed. There is no exact, set formula for it and I think that in certain circumstances the Government have the right to be a little "easy" about collecting it back for a short time while the aero-engine gets off the ground, as it were, to the point of actual sales.

Mr. Bence: Some of the best aircraft engines in the world have been developed by research in private institutions and by Government establishments and then manufactured overseas under licence. For instance, Pratt and Whitney manufacture Rolls-Royce engines under licence. Does the Treasury get any of the licence fee when that happens?

Mr. Marten: Yes, it does, but I cannot say precisely off the cuff what it gets in the way of drawback when there is manufacture under licence overseas.
The hon. Member for Islington, East asked about liaison between the universities and the Government establishments. When I have been to Government establishments, such as the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, and I have asked this question on the ground, as it were, I have found that they regard liaison as satisfactory. We should like to see even more done in that way. I think that I have said sufficient to show that the increases are not due to any carelessness on the part of the Ministry of Aviation, and I hope that the Committee will approve them.
I now turn to the subject of the European Launcher Development Organisation, shortly, E.L.D.O. The reasons for the extra provision for E.L.D.O. are clearly stated on page 92 of the Supplementary Estimates, and I will not take up the time of the Committee by going through all that again in great detail. Suffice it to say that the delay in setting up E.L.D.O. has caused certain payments from E.L.D.O. to be postponed, as until it is set up, it clearly cannot pay anything; nor, on the other hand, can we pay our share into E.L.D.O. until it is set up. As provision for both these payments was made in the original Estimates, the matter had to be adjusted in the accounts. As we hoped to receive £1·1 million more than we paid out, the Supplementary Estimates now seek the Committee's approval for the provision of this sum, which will be recouped when the convention is ratified.
The Convention for the establishment of E.L.D.O. was drawn up at a conference in Lancaster House in October, 1961. The Convention was signed by Australia, Belgium, France, Germany. Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in March, 1962. The first programme of the organisation, consisting of a three-stage launcher, of which Blue Streak is the first stage, a French rocket the second and a German rocket the third, is presently estimated to cost a total of about £70 million over a period of five years from November, 1961. It is estimated that a satellite test vehicle will be placed in orbit early in 1966. This is being made in Italy by the Italians.
The hon. Member for Newton asked for tangible results and concrete facts. I hope that that was something, but I will take the opportunity to bring the Committee up to date and say that we have conducted a successful series of static firings at Spadeadam of both the engines and of the complete Blue Streak. The first rocket, which will be sent to Australia for testing at the launching site at Woomera, is at present making preliminary tests at Spadeadam prior to dispatch later this year. Another concrete fact is that the first flight test firing of the Blue Streak first stage is expected to take place in Australia in the spring of 1964. I hope that those few facts will give the Committee concrete examples of how this project is going ahead.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some more information about the testing of Blue Streak in Australia? Has he any idea what this will cost?

Mr. Marten: I have no figures which I can readily give the hon. Gentleman, but I have just given the Committee a figure of £70 million which the whole project will cost to all the E.L.D.O. countries. That cost will then be split between the members of E.L.D.O. in the proportions set out as an annexe to the E.L.D.O. Convention.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend expect the other European Powers concerned speedily to ratify this Convention? Does not this expenditure depend to a large extent on its ratification?

Mr. Marten: I am coming to the question of ratification, which I think was mentioned by practically every hon. Member who spoke during the debate.
I was trying to give the Committee some concrete facts to show how far the project had gone. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) asked whether the results would be advantageous to this country, and whether we would get the results of the firing of any satellites. The answer is "Yes". The information coming in will be pooled.
As many hon. Members have said, only the Australians have so far ratified the Convention. We expect to ratify it by the middle of this year, and we hope that all countries will have ratified it by the autumn. I cannot, of course, speak for the other countries because they have their own constitutional ways of doing this, but the best estimate we can give is that the Convention should be completely ratified by the autumn.
The reason why our ratification has not taken place as quickly as some hon. Members thought it might have, is purely an administrative one, in that questions of protocol and diplomatic immunity are being worked out in the usual way. There is no holding back on our part.

Mr. Lee: Has the hon. Gentleman any doubts about whether any one of the seven will refuse to ratify the Convention at the appropriate time?

Mr. Marten: I have no evidence of any doubts at all, and I would tell the hon. Gentleman if I had.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the break-down of the Common Market negotiations has no bearing on this?

Mr. Marten: I am coming to that point, which the hon. Gentleman raised in his speech. I think that the question he posed is, and must be, very much one of opinion. Naturally a lot of hon. Members studied the question of the Common Market, and I think that as a group of people we know quite a lot about it. I have seen no effect whatsoever of the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations on the forward move to get the E.L.D.O. Convention ratified. E.L.D.O. comes into force when States, the total of whose contribution according to the table in the annexe to the financial protocol to the Convention amounts to 85 per cent., have ratified the Convention.
Since the cancellation of Blue Streak as a military weapon, work has continued in the United Kingdom on those aspects of the rocket which will be useful as the first stage of the satellite launcher. The Convention provides that the cost of the first programme is to be shared on the basis of the table in the annexe to the financial protocol. The table lists all the countries who were present at the earlier Strasbourg Conference, and the percentage contributions are based on the gross national product of the countries concerned, except that we have offered to pay one-third of the total cost. The Convention provides that if any of the countries do not participate in the organisation —and presumably, also, if they do not ratify—the United Kingdom, France and Germany will consult as to sharing the shortfall caused by the failure of these other countries to join.
As from 1st November, 1961, the cost falls on E.L.D.O., as does the cost of the work going on in other member countries. Pending sufficient ratifications and the coming into being of E.L.D.O., the member countries have set up a preparatory group with headquarters staff in Paris to co-ordinate work which is going on in their various countries. The question was raised by several hon. Members whether other members of E.L.D.O. were carrying out their own national space


programmes. The answer is that they are, but the amount of work that they can afford individually is not very great, and I do not think that it poses any threat to E.L.D.O. as a whole. During the interim period the work of member countries for E.L.D.O. is being undertaken at their own risk, but subject to repayment from E.L.D.O. when it comes into being.
I have dealt at some length with the Supplementary Estimate before the Committee, and also with the subject which most interests hon. Members—that of E.L.D.O. I hope that, as a result of what I have told the Committee, it will approved the Supplementary Estimate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,750,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aviation for the administration of supply (including research, development and inspection), and of civil aviation; for contributions to two international organisations, a grant in aid, a conditional grant, and sundry other services.

Orders of the Day — Class I

Vote 3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £175,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the First Secretary of State, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister without Portfolio.

Orders of the Day — OFFICE OF FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I wish to offer a few comments on this Supplementary Estimate. The total amount involved is £175,000, of which £11,000 is for the
Office of the First Secretary of State, Salaries, etc.
It is true that lower down, on page 13, there is a saving of £8,000 on a new telephone installation that is not now

required until 1963–64. Nevertheless, the charge upon the Exchequer of £11,000 to the Office of Chief Secretary of State and his staff is worth a little time of the Committee.
To get this new post—an innovation in Ministerial office—into proper perspective, it is necessary to go back to the dramatic event that occurred last July, when one-third of the Cabinet was sacked and there was an exchange of asperities between the Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the day before the famous Black Friday-13th July, 1962 —the Conservative candidate at the Leicester, North-East by-election had dropped 24 per cent. of the Tory vote compared with 1959. In three by-elections in the previous month of June the Conservative vote had fallen by 21 per cent. in Middlesbrough, West; 25 per cent. in Derbyshire, West, and 28·3 per cent. in West Lothian. The Prime Minister resolved upon drastic measures to reinstate the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State was one of the few survivors of the "purge" of Friday, 13th July. Far from going out, the First Secretary of State went up. Since the Cabinet changes of October, 1961, the right hon. Gentleman has been, one, unofficial Deputy Prime Minister; two, Home Secretary; three, Minister for Central African Affairs; four, Chairman of the Cabinet Committe on Common Market negotiations. In July last he left the Home Office and took on a more official description as Deputy Prime Minister. Though having no constitutional style, this Office was used to describe the situation in which the right hon. Gentleman was to relieve the Prime Minister of many of his responsibilities for home and overseas affairs. His constitutional style was, First Secretary of State.
I think that the Committee should know whether this means that he is first among equals or principal of all the principal Secretaries of State. This constitutional innovation is worth a few moments of explanation to the Committee and we shall be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will give it in person. We see so little of him these days that the Committee is looking forward to hearing the most engaging chortle on the Treasury Bench. To avoid any suggestion—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Houghton: No, I am right in the middle of my discourse, and it will admit of no interruption at this stage. It is too good to miss.
To avoid any suggestion that this Office was created under Parkinson's Law, the additional Secretary of State, or so it seems, is the consequence of merging the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. The additional post was paid for, so it seems, out of savings. Now, what does the First Secretary of State do? As Home Secretary, he had some body and substance to his Ministerial existence. With other responsibilities on top, the right hon. Gentleman had the appearance, on paper, of being a hard-worked, if not overworked, Minister. He now seems to have only one task which offers any challenge to his considerable gifts. I do not underestimate the gravity or the complexity of the problems with which he is now dealing. The Times newspaper, almost on the anniversary of his appointment to be in charge of Central African affairs, has delivered a little homily to the right hon. Gentleman only this morning. It suggests that he will have to get tough.
Up to the present the name of the right hon. Gentleman has been associated with the Education Act of 1944, and the tax on pots and pans in 1955. I think that the name of the right hon. Gentleman would go down in history if he could present to the House of Commons, in due course, a triumph over the bewildering and exacting complexities of Central African affairs. But at least I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the general supervision of the Common Market negotiations—while doubtless a strain while it lasted—is scarcely occupying his time now. There is nothing more to supervise, and all his uplifting words at the Conservative Party Conference at Llandudno are floating in the mists over the Welsh hills.
In fact he seems to be looking for outside work. I noticed in the Guardian of 11th March that:
Mr. R. A. Butler, the Deputy Prime Minister and M.P. for Saffron Walden, may be the next High Steward of Cambridge.
Not even Essex.
The city council will be asked at its next meeting to approve a recommendation by its

general purposes committee that he should be given the post.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman want to be High Steward of Cambridge? Is it not enough to be Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State? Why does he want to go scratching round for a High Stewardship when he occupies the most exalted position of First Secretary of State? When the right hon. Gentleman was appointed, the Guardian, which is now a little left of the Daily Herald, was rather scornful, and said
To have a new First Secretary of State is all very well—to have had a new First Lord of the Treasury would have been better.
Of course it would. The electoral consequences of not having a new First Lord of the Treasury have meant that the Conservative vote in subsequent by-elections dropped lower than ever before and that probably it will drop catastrophically further.
Mention of the First Lord of the Treasury brings to mind another innovation of the Government, that of the Chief Secretary. We find a most imposing list of Treasury Ministers. There is the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, No. 1, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary—asterisk, blank—the Chief Secretary is also Paymaster-General and his salary as such is paid under Subhead O, the Lords Commissioners, 5, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Financial Secretary, the Economic Secretary, Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard—

The Temporary Chairman (Commander C. E. M. Donaldson): I hesitate —it is my natural inclination to hesitate —to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going well outside the Vote before the Committee. I hope that he will come back to that Vote.

Mr. Houghton: Yes, Sir. I am coming right to it if you will bear with me for a moment, because when I have completed the list of Treasury Ministers I am going to ask why the right hon. Gentleman is not one of them. We have the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard, the Lords in Waiting, the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household—

The Temporary Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to desist. We are concerned with a Vote which specifies the people who are included and not with those who are not included in the Vote. I must ask the hon. Member not to carry the argument further at this point.

Mr. Houghton: I am very much obliged to you, Commander Donaldson. I was just about to observe that there is plenty of room at the top. I notice that while the First Secretary of State is charged to the Treasury Vote he is not listed as a Treasury Minister. That is the point I was trying to make. He is carried on the strength like the Lord Privy Seal. One would have expected that the First Secretary of State, carried on the Treasury Vote, would at least be among the number of Treasury Ministers. Alternatively, one would expect that as the only visible job which the right hon. Gentleman now has is Minister in charge of Central African Affairs he would be charged to the Central African Office, but he is not even found there.
The Supplementary Estimate is for £11,000. For all we can tell it might be dear at the price. This is the only opportunity we have of discussing for a short time this new appointment because the proliferation of Ministers requires no statutory authority. One often wonders what any Minister is doing as Deputy Prime Minister when he is never spoken of as a future Prime Minister. One also wonders what any Minister is doing as First Secretary of State when he is now mostly, if not exclusively, the Secretary of State for Central African Affairs. This Supplementary Estimate is for our Ministerial Pooh-Bah and his staff, a staff of two. We might also say "two men and a dog", but only the two men are in the Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman has veritably the smallest Department in the public service today.
There are rumours going round of changes in Ministerial offices since the Lord Privy Seal is himself looking for other fields to conquer. It may be that before we have scarcely passed this Supplementary Estimate the right hon. Gentleman will have been put into some new responsible office of Government.
There are a few serious points in this light-hearted approach to the right hon. Gentleman's office. The Committee would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gen-

tleman a first-hand, personal account of his present activities. I am sure that it will be most impressive, and when the hour of 9.30 strikes I have no doubt at all that the Committee will be willing to approve this modest sum of £11,000 for one of Her Majesty's most distinguished Ministers.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I am unable this evening to follow the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in his light-hearted and admittedly fascinating discourse. It is appropriate at this stage to say something on a more serious note about what must be one of the most difficult tasks any Minister has to face. I hope the hon. Member for Sowerby will agree that, whatever party was in power and whatever the personality of the person occupying the office under discussion tonight, the incumbent of that office would have some of the gravest possible problems to deal with in Central Africa.
Looking back to the situation which existed before my right hon. Friend was appointed to his present position, we all recall that things were then certainly in a much more confused State in Central Africa, since in addition to the difficulties, there was a lack of co-ordination—this must be admitted—in our dealings in Central Africa. The Colonial Office was responsible for the Dependent Territories. The proper function of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was to look after the interests, so far as that was compatible with his duty to the House of Commons and to the country, of independent or semi-independent Southern Rhodesia. It was widely felt out there—none of us knows with what truth or otherwise —that because of this—I will not say "conflict of interests", but difference of interests—Central African affairs were not being adequately dealt with. There was a degree of mistrust and misunderstanding in Central Africa which obviously Her Majesty's Government felt it was right to dispel.
In these circumstances, the only possibility was to appoint a senior Minister with sole responsibility for the whole area. It was suggested by some at the time that it should be handed over either to the Secretary of State for the Colonies or to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. If the responsibility had been handed over to the Secretary of State for


the Colonies, those who had previously been looked after by the Commonwealth Relations Office would have been indignant. If the responsibility had been handed over to the Commonwealth Relations Office, those who had previously been looked after by the Colonial Office would have been indignant. Therefore, my right hon. Friend was appointed to what must have been, and still must be, one of the most difficult tasks he has ever had to undertake or ever will have to undertake.
It is true—I speak as one who visited the Territories many times before my right hon. Friend took on his present onerous duties, and I have visited them since—that, even though there may be considerable disagreement, and there is likely to be still more disagreement, in all circles with the steps we are compelled to take during the next few months, nevertheless there is now a very considerable degree of personal confidence and trust in my right hon. Friend. This applies both to the Africans and to the Europeans Living in the area. Even those Europeans in Southern Rhodesia and in the area of the Federal Government most hostile to our handling of Central African affairs during the last few months invariably concede the complete integrity of purpose of my right hon. Friend.
Therefore, if we are dealing purely in financial terms, as the hon. Member for Sowerby was, I cannot see any sign, looking through these Estimates, of money better spent than the £11,000 which has brought about some reduction of tension in Central Africa. In saying all this I am not pretending for one moment that all is well out there or that difficult tasks do not lie ahead. Nyasaland has already had agreement to secede from this country and at least two of the other territorial Governments have concurred, although it is fair to admit that Sir Roy Welensky and his Federal Government have accepted it with only a sort of de facto reluctance.
My right hon. Friend now has ahead of him the much more difficult task of what to do about the two Rhodesias. Any hon. Member who knows this part of the world would readily admit that it would be a terrible tragedy economically and politically and to harmonious race relations if some form of association, the stronger the better, did not

remain between the two Rhodesias. Nevertheless, one must admit that the prospects do not look too good at the moment because as the months unfold their somewhat unhappy story it is seen that none of the Governments concerned—let alone the populations; and it is anyone's guess what they think—are keen on the continuance of Federation, at least in its present form. Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government must now face that situation.
It is no good abusing my right hon. Friend or the British Government on this issue because the Governments there were freely elected, the most recent one being in Southern Rhodesia. Thus, within the limits of what my right hon. Friend can still accomplish, I suggest that he should, as far as possible, concentrate in the first place on maintaining the economic links because in this direction there should be common ground, irrespective of anything else. When one has two territories, one of which has built up largely the production of raw materials and the other the production of secondary industries—with, therefore, a natural complementary market between the two—it would be a tragedy if unnecessary walls were erected between them.
Politically one is undoubtedly less sanguine, if only because the Governments there do not seem politically keen on having political links between the two territories, although it is fair to say that Mr. Winston Field has not ruled this out. One must admit that the difficulties are intense and that they will not grow easier as the tensions there grow because of events in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia.
If we are to achieve any kind of political solution it will have to be—that is, if there is to be any kind of central Government—a solution in which the decisions of that Government are not in themselves binding without the consent of the Governments of the two territories concerned, particularly on any issues of importance. There are examples in history—I will not list them, for many other hon. Members wish to speak—in which Federal Governments have built themselves up on the basis of the consent of the component parts on major issues. I suggest, therefore,


that my right hon. Friend might follow this suggestion up at the forthcoming conference. I hope that despite the disagreements we have had—and, I suppose, are bound to have—with Sir Roy Welensky, none of us will forget the enormous service he has rendered to both the Commonwealth and his own country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Does the salary of Sir Roy Welensky enter into this matter and the Vote before us?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Grimston): The salary of Sir Roy Welensky is not on the Vote. I hope that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) is making only a passing reference to the matter.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Further to that point of order. How far is it in order, in discussing the sum of money in this Vote, to discuss how much of the activities of the First Secretary is directed to Africa?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is now part of the responsibilities of the First Secretary.

Sir K. Pickthom: Not as First Secretary.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. Do I take it that we can now have a general debate on Rhodesia arising out of this Supplementary Estimate? I must submit that the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has dealt with Rhodesian problems.

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: The responsibilities of the First Secretary are chiefly concerned with Central Africa now and I think that it is proper to discuss that matter, although I hope that the hon. Member for Torquay will not go too far.

Mr. Bennett: Thank you for your Ruling, Sir Robert. The reference to Sir Roy Welensky that gave rise to those points of order was only a passing reference, but I submit that it is within the purview of my right hon. Friend's duties to make the best settlement he can in Central Africa. I therefore think that I am entitled to suggest various

methods by which he can best justify the salary we are voting him tonight. One of the ways in which he can best justify that salary is to provide a settlement that will take account of the very Teal need for the services of one of the most prominent statesmen in that part of the world to continue to be available in the future.
When too the time comes for my right hon. Friend to deal with the conference within the purview of his duties as First Secretary, responsible for Central African affairs, I hope that he will realise that many of us think that in coming to a solution he must pay very great attention, not only to the needs and demands of Northern Rhodesia but to the parallel needs for the advancement of Southern Rhodesia towards independence.

9.11 p.m.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): If I intervene for a few minutes in response to the good-humoured introduction of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) I hope that I may still leave time for others to take part in the debate. I have very little to say, but I hope that what I have to say will be of good humour equal to that of the hon. Gentleman.
It seems to me quite natural that the House should wish some account of what appears to be a new office. To the first point made by the hon. Member for Sowerby I would reply by saying that, in fact, there have been in British history—as he will see by reference to the pages of Anson—previous examples of the title of Principal Secretary or First Secretary being used. The first occasion was in 1476, when the title of First Secretary was used, largely to distinguish its holder from the amanuenses who accompanied the King, or the scullions who served in his kitchen.
The further history of the office, which I shall put very shortly so as not to take up too much of the Committee's time, continues in the time of Elizabeth I. During the greater part of that reign, there was only one Secretary, but at its close there were two, and the Principal Secretary, Sir Robert Cecil, who shared the duties with another Secretary, was known in those days as "Our Principal Secretary of Estate". There have been occasions when there has been a title similar to this—

Sir K. Pickthorn: Will my right hon, Friend permit me—

Mr. Butler: Yes, I was just coming to my hon. Friend's point.

Sir K. Pickthorn: Is my right hon. Friend doubting that the office of the Secretary of State was always in Elizabeth's time, and ever since has been, the same office in the hands of each Secretary of State, and is he telling us that in the title "First Secretary of State" the word "First" is imported merely to underline "Principal", and not to distinguish one Principal Secretary from another? Which is it?

Mr. Butler: I had in my notes "H.M. for Carlton," and having heard him growling behind me I had inserted in my speech the passage from Anson which makes perfectly clear, in answer to my hon. Friend, who is probably the greatest constitutional lawyer in the House, that Secretaries of State are, in fact, equal. Whatever may be the title—"First Secretary" or "Principal Secretary," or anything else—the duties are, under the constitution, interchangeable, and can be performed by one Secretary in the absence of another, as is frequently the case. For example, I performed certain duties for another Secretary of State who was recently abroad because I was entitled as much as he was to use the title of Secretary of State in signing documents. So I hope that I have calmed my hon. Friend—

Sir K. Pickthorn: Not a bit.

Mr. Butler: —by telling him that Secretaries of State are equal and coequal before the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) referred to the principal duties that I am performing at the present time and, without detaining the Committee for too long, I would simply reply that these duties are, I think, some of the most onerous, at any rate, that I myself have carried out in the course of over 30 years in this House. They are depicted today, as the hon. Member for Sowerby has said, in a leading article in The Times, which I do not think under-estimates the difficulties which I, Her Majesty's Government, the country, and the peoples of Central Africa face at the present time.
It is quite natural that in the debates that have previously taken place in this House and in the Committee I have explained the difficulties, particularly on 28th February last, when I went into all the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay drew special attention to the problems of Northern and Southern Rhodesia. On Thursday of this week, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, accompanied by his Minister of Justice, arrives in this country for talks. He is followed by eight representatives of the Northern Rhodesian Government on Monday, and by the Federal Prime Minister and two of his Ministers in the next day or two after that. I shall, therefore, be involved in particularly important negotiations with a view to finding a basis for a conference.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay also drew attention to the importance of a link between the two Rhodesias. It is quite clear that the two Rhodesias have depended upon one another in the past, and it is equally clear that Her Majesty's Government desire to find the most adequate and suitable basis for the conference and the most adequate and suitable basis for association between these Territories.
My hon. Friend referred to Nyasaland. The secession exercise in Nyasaland is proceeding under a British chairman, Sir George Curtis, appointed for the working party with which the Federal Government and the Nyasaland Government are at present co-operating. I can, therefore, report that this aspect of my duties is well in hand and likely to become even more intense in the course of the next few days. I shall also take the opportunity of meeting Mr. Nkomo, who has arrived in London for the purpose also of seeing me and I shall have an opportunity of interviewing him.
The Central African portion of my duties, although taking up a considerable portion of my time, is, I think, in operation and I have nothing further to add to the Committee tonight.
I have nevertheless other duties to perform. The hon. Member for Sowerby referred to the Common Market. But I think that it would be rather naive of the Committee if it imagined that just because we had not gone into Europe there are less duties to perform in what


can be described as the post-Brussels epoch. I should like to say that it is not in order or usual for an announcement to be made about the chairmen of Government Committees and so I am not going to transcend those rules of constitutional behaviour which we understand in this Committee. But I can say that I deputise for the Prime Minister in relation to the great quantity of work which has very much come upon us since the Brussels decision was taken. That adds considerably to the duties that I have undertaken in relation to Central Africa. There are many other duties which, in deputising for the Prime Minister, I perform in the Government, and I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in a Government of whatever complexion it is rather useful to have Ministers without Portfolio who can perform duties within that Government of correlation, co-ordination and chairmanship of committees.
I tried doing this as Home Secretary and I have had considerable experience as a Minister, which I can share with the Committee. I found that it was not altogether to the advantage of a coordinating Minister to have a great Department of State. A great Department of State takes up a great deal of one's time; it must of necessity do so. My experience is that, together with my duties in Central Africa, I can do better coordination in the present Conservative Government, placed as I am as First Secretary of State, than I could in charge of a great Department of State. This is a highly-controversial matter which is set out in full in Ivor Jennings' book on the constitution and which I could quote to the Committee if it so desires. But my own experience is, I think, of value in saying that this co-ordination work can best be done by an independent Secretary of State with powers to co-ordinate and to look after things as best he can as deputy for the Prime Minister. This is the best answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that it satisfies him that my modest salary and my one or two officials are well worth the money spent on them.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I think that with regard to the part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt

with his duties in Central Africa, one could say, probably with the support of all hon. Members of the Committee, that it is to be hoped that the work which he is carrying on on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will lead to the satisfaction of the aspirations of the African majority and to a situation in which the Europeans can live peaceably together with their other fellow countrymen out there. I am sure that we all wish the right hon. Gentleman well in that work.
I should like to spend the remaining few minutes, however, in asking a few more questions concerning his constitutional position in the Cabinet. I rather regret, from that point of view, that I was unable to speak before he addressed the Committee, but as the right hon. Gentleman said in his concluding remarks that this is a subject which exercises many minds, this might not be the last occasion on which it can be discussed. We may have future occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman might be able to speak again about his own position.
There are still problems left in the minds of many of my hon. Friends after listening to the right hon. Gentleman. First, there is the position of Deputy Prime Minister. It is certainly not clear to me whether or not we are in the midst of a new convention which is growing up. I was not clear after listening to the right hon. Gentleman whether he was performing the duties of Deputy Prime Minister only when the Prime Minister was out of the country or when he was otherwise unable to perform his duties. I was not clear whether we are not witnessing the growth of a new convention, and it would be interesting and important from the point of view of constitutional development if it were possible for hon. Members to know a little more about this.
It is well known to all students of constitutional history that when Sir Robert Walpole was in office, the office of Prime Minister was growing up without many people being aware of the fact. It may well be that on this occasion we are seeing certain changes coming about without our knowing very much about them. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is purely performing the formal functions of Deputy Prime Minister, or is he as First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister in a position of influence and


constitutional power within the Cabinet which makes him different from any other Secretary of State? I have sympathy with the question put by the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) who was obviously interested in this point.
There is another important question which arises from what the right hon. Gentleman has told us. He said that it was important to have a Minister who had no major Department to administer and therefore was in a better position to run Government Committees and to have a general supervisory function. The question that arises is whether the right hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that there are certain functions of Government which he supervises beyond the tasks concerning Central Africa which he mentioned. If so, what are those functions?
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is not customary under our constitutional conventions to name the committees over which he might preside, but it is important that we should know where the right hon. Gentleman is exercising his influence and where he might be responsible for policy-making. It is not good enough to say that he ought not to announce the names of the committees over which he presides. There should be clear evidence of responsibility at the Dispatch Box and in this Chamber. This was the consideration behind the good-natured argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
There is a serious point in all this. It is important to know, and it is not easy with the present Government to put responsibility where it belongs, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has improved matters by what he has told us tonight. It is important that we should be able to tell the electorate and that hon. Members should know that such-and-such a Minister is responsible for this or that function and that if things go wrong he should stand up and answer and defend his policies. If the right hon. Gentleman is carrying responsibilities which have not been revealed to the House of Commons, we are entitled to know what they are.
My next point concerns the justification which the right hon. Gentleman has given us for his salary. It is clear that he can justify the salary and that one is

not particularly concerned about the modest sum involved, but one must be concerned about the kind of responsibilities which he carries in relation to the Treasury and other Departments.
The right hon. Gentleman said that not being concerned with a major Department leaves him more free time, and he referred to himself as—I do not know whether he meant to say this or whether it was a slip of the tongue—an "independent First Secretary of State". That leaves me in more doubt about the constitutional position than before. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he refers to himself as an independent First Secretary of State? Of whom is he independent? Is he in a position in relation to the Prime Minister different from that of other Secretaries of State? Is he in a position which makes his power and influence in the Cabinet different and independent from other members of the Government? All these questions have remained unanswered tonight, and the Committee is entitled, before agreeing to this Vote, to have a clear explanation of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
This is not the occasion on which to go into the wider implications of the position which has arisen, hut it is well known that in the recent changes and in the changes introduced in the Treasury there has been a blurring of responsibility. It is bad for democratic Government that this should occur. This is the first occasion on which we have made some inquiries into this matter. We promise the right hon. Gentleman that we shall return to this subject, and he should have some more detailed answers ready when we do so.

9.26 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I deeply regret being tiresome on this occasion, and I regret even more deeply agreeing, to a very large extent, with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I have never been reconciled to the notion of Deputy Prime Ministers. However much mistaken I may be about that, we are tonight confronted with a series of questions and no time in which to get an answer to them. One question is this: does my right hon. Friend base his defence on the argument that "first" and "principal" are, to all intents and purposes, identical words, which seemed to be half


his case, or on the contrary principle that "first" distinguishes one principal Secretary of State from the others? We should know which is the argument.
We should also know how a Secretary of State, of all animals, can be without a portfolio. It is possible to have cows without horns and all sorts of other animals many of which I would not wish to mention, without what are generally assumed to be their characteristic marks, but how one can have a Secretary of State without a portfolio completely defeats me.
Another question which I should wish to have answered on some other occasion is this. Was all the stuff which we have had about Rhodesia and Africa in order? I say that with no intention of criticising the Chair. It may be true—no doubt it is—that my right hon. Friend is, by direction of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, in charge of certain subjects which are not parts of what we would call a portfolio. But all that is alterable at a moment's notice at any time. I am not arguing the contrary, I am honestly asking for information: was it in order, on this Vote for the first Secretary of State, to discuss the administration or policy in Rhodesia or Africa or generally?
Obviously, when discussing the Secretary of State for War, the War Office is more directly relevant than any other office, although one Secretary of State can do the work of any other. But I simply do not understand how that principle either applies or does not apply to the case before us, and I am not convinced that most of our time has not been spent on what, strictly speaking, was not relevant to this Vote. If the Vote is to be put down again in successive years, it is very important that it should be made clear by Her Majesty's advisers, first to themselves and afterwards to those who have intellects which can communicate with theirs, what are the answers to these questions. I am sure that the answers have not been plain in the mind of my right hon. Friend or in the minds of any of us who have spoken this evening.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May I ask my right hon. Friend one question? Since he has stated what appears to me to be

the common constitutional doctrine that there is really one—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order, Sir Robert—

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot hear a point of order now. Under the Standing Order, I have to put the Question. I will hear the hon. Member when I have disposed of the Votes.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £175,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the First Secretary of State, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister without Portfolio.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Navy and the Army Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days and of all outstanding Excess Votes be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

That a sum, not exceeding £36,391,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for expenditure in respect of Navy Services, viz.:—


Vote

£


8.
Lands, Buildings and Machinery
3,093,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
11,610,000


10.
Non-effective Services
21,687,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
1,000




£36,391,000

Question put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

That a sum, not exceeding £213,511,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for expenditure in respect of Army Services, viz.:—


Vote

£


1.
Pay, etc., of the Army
145,200,000


2.
Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
20,710,000


8.
Lands, Buildings and Works
6,990,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
5,760,000


10.
Non-effective services
34,850,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
1,000




£213,511,000

Question put and agreed to.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES

That a sum, not exceeding £3,600,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.

Question put and agreed to,

WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £6,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964.

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—


CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS 1




£


1.
House of Lords
4,000


2.
House of Commons
29,000


6.
Customs and Excise
454,000


7.
Inland Revenue
1,681,000


8.
Exchequer and Audit Department
12,000


9.
Civil Service Commission
43,000


10.
Royal Commissions, etc.
25,000

CLASS II


1.
Foreign Service
1,172,000


2.
Foreign Grants and Loans
1,677,000


4.
Commonwealth Relations Office
5,109,000


5.
Commonwealth Grants and Loans
5,286,000

£


7.
Colonial Office
1,127,000


8.
Colonial Grants and Loans
413,000


10.
Department of Technical Cooperation
1,000


11.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
64,000

CLASS III


1.
Home Office
776,000


2B
Scottish Home and Health Department
63,000


3.
Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
250,000


5.
Police, England and Wales
1,900,000


6.
Police, Scotland
134,000


8.
Prisons, Scotland
172,000


11.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
1,000


12.
County Courts
5,000


13.
Legal Aid Fund
1,050,000


14.
Law Charges
1,000


15.
Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
10,000


16.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
1,000

CLASS IV


1.
Board of Trade
306,000


2.
Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency, and Trading, etc., Services)
1,000


6.
Ministry of Labour
1,000


10.
Ministry of Transport
1,118,000


12.
Roads, etc., Scotland
1,995,000


14B.
Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)
4,000,000

CLASS V


1.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
585,000


2.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
1,000


3.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
6,705,000


9.
Fishery Grants and Services
1,000


11.
Forestry Commission
535,000

CLASS VI


1.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government
959,000


4
General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
4,660,000


5.
General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
353,000


8.
Ministry of Education
1,000


9.
Scottish Education Department
248,000


12.
Ministry of Health
230,000


14.
National Health Service (Hospital, etc., Services), England and Wales
1,438,000


16.
Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales
1,026,000


17.
National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), England and Wales
1,000


18.
National Health Service, etc., Scotland
3,054,000

£


19.
National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), Scotland
1,000


20.
Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
286,000


22.
Family Allowances
250,000


23
National Assistance Board
26,207,000

CLASS VII


3.
Atomic Energy
1,000


5.
Medical Research Council
42,000


6
Agricultural Research Council
13,000


7
Nature Conservancy
61,000

CLASS VIII


1.
British Museum
1,000


3.
Science Museum
1,000


4.
Victoria and Albert Museum
22,000


6.
London Museum
2,000


7.
National Gallery
12,000


8.
National Maritime Museum
37,000


9.
National Portrait Gallery
1,000


10.
Tate Gallery
20,000


11.
Wallace Collection
1,000


13
National Galleries of Scotland
2,000

CLASS IX


1.
Ministry of Public Building and Works
1,000


2.
Public Buildings, &amp;c., United Kingdom
2,650,000


3.
Public Buildings Overseas
400,000


5.
Royal Palaces
12,000


6.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
35,000


8.
Rates on Government Property
480,000


13.
Civil Superannuation, &amp;c.
1,135,000


14
Post Office Superannuation, &amp;c.
1,000

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963 for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Naval Services for the year.

SCHEDULE







Sums not exceeding







Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote




£
£


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
…
…
…
300,000
350,000


4.
Civilians on Fleet Services
…
…
…
300,000
…


6.
Scientific Services
…
…
…
Cr. 1,100,000
100,000


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.




I—Personnel
…
…
…
930,000
*-30,000



II—Material
…
…
…
4,500,000
*-3,100,000



III—Contract Work
…
…
…
5,000,000
1,400,000


9.
Naval Armaments
…
…
…
Cr. 330,000
*-430,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
…
…
…
650,000
*-650,000


13.
Non-effective Services
…
…
…
750,000
—



Total, Navy (Supplementary), 1962–63 £
11,000,000
*-2,360,000


* Deficit

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS X




£


1.
Charity Commission
11,000


2.
Crown Estate Office
2,000


5.
National Debt Office
1,000


7.
Public Trustee
1,000


11
Ordnance Survey
94,000


12.
Public Record Office
1,000


13.
Scottish Record Office
4,000


16.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
1,000

CLASS XI


1.
Broadcasting
636,000


4.
Pensions &amp;c. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
266,000


5.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &amp;c.
9,000


11.
Supplements to Pensions, &amp;c. (Overseas Services)
122,000




81,500,000

Question put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions, and certain grants in aid.

Question put and agreed to.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for expenditure, including a grant in aid, beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

SCHEDULE





Sums not exceeding





Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote


£
£


1.
Pay, &amp;c., of the Army
…
2,031,000
—


2.
Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
…
Cr. 880,000
* -550,000


4.
Civilians
…
1,970,000
—


5.
Movements
…
2,200,000
170,000


6.
Supplies, &amp;c.
…
880,000
—


7.
Stores
…
Cr. 6,830,000
2,500,000


8.
Works, Buildings and Lands
…
Cr. 20,000
1,800,000


10.
Non-effective Services
…
650,000
—


11.
Additional Married Quarters
…
—
* -640,000



Total, Army (Supplementary), 1962–63
£
1,000
3,280,000


* Deficit

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1961–62

That a sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1962.

SCHEDULE


Class and Vote



Excess Vote






£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


CLASS II








2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES
£
s.
d.








Subhead D.7.—United Nations Civil Assistance to the Congo:


Excess Expenditure
39
8
2








Subhead E.7.—Central Treaty Organisation: Institute of Nuclear Science (Grant in Aid):


Excess Expenditure
1,583
3
0








Subhead E.9.—Central Treaty Organisation; Agricultural Machinery and Soil Conservation Training Centre (Grant in Aid):


Excess Expenditure
2,855
12
6
4,478
3
8





Less—Net savings available on other subheads



4,468
3
8
10
0
0


12. DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL CO-OPHRATCON


Subhead C.—Subscription towards the expenses of the Colombo Plan Bureau:


Excess Expenditure



206
3
2





Less—Net savings available on other subheads



196
3
2
10
0
0


CLASS IV








1. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
£
s.
d.








Subhead K.1.—United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation: Subscription:


Excess Expenditure
1,901
0
0








Subhead K.2.—International Bureau of Education: Subscription:


Excess Expenditure
3
18
1
1,904
18
1





Less—Net savings available on other subheads



1,894
18
1
10
0
0


Total, Civil (Excesses)


…£
30
0
0

Question put and agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman: I will now hear the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) on the point of order he wished to raise.

Mr. John Hall: I rise to seek your guidance, Sir Robert. We have just passed a number of Votes. The Army Vote alone totals about £554 million and others £100 million-plus. We have had no opportunity, under our procedure as it stands, to debate these matters.
As I understand it, the duty of Parliament is to scrutinise carefully and critically all expenditures for which we are responsible. But time and again we find that this is quite impossible under the procedure as it exists. How can we avoid passing Votes of this kind on the nod with no opportunity for debate? How can hon. Members find any method of speaking on this kind of expenditure with critical reservations? Does it mean that the procedure must be changed before we can do so, or is there some other method open to us?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) voices also the opinion of many hon. Members on this side of the Committee. We would like to ask your guidance as to how we can alter the procedure under which large sums of money are voted on the nod without adequate consideration by this Committee.
I agree with the hon. Member that yesterday we had an opportunity to discuss large sums spent on the Royal Air Force and on the Royal Navy, but as a result of various hon. Members with expert knowledge trying to get information about the R.A.F. and the Royal Navy—there was no question of obstruction, for they were rising to put questions of very great consideration—we never reached a large percentage of the Army Votes.
What facilities are possible by which the passage on the nod of enormous sums of public money can be obviated? As I have said, there was no obstruction on the Air Force and Navy Votes yesterday, yet, as the hon. Member for Wycombe has said, there was very inadequate consideration of those Votes and no consideration at all of the immense amount of money we have just voted for the Army.

The Deputy-Chairman: The only way to deal with the matter would be to seek an alteration of the procedure of the House. We have, in these last days, proceeded under present Standing Orders and the Chair cannot change them. But if the House wishes to change the procedure it can do so. That is the answer I must give to the hon. Gentleman.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1962, the sum of £30 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Barber.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £115,301,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. —[Mr. Barber.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, the sum of £2,388,393,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. —[Mr. Barber.]

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

RATING (NATIONAL COAL BOARD PROPERTY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the National Coal Board (Valuation) Order, 1963, dated 1st March, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Are we not to have an explanation of this Order? We have admired the very eloquent and persuasive and detailed explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary, but we are entitled to some further explanation of this rather mysterious and vague Order. We


want to see how the Treasury is facing up to this question of National Coal Board valuations.

9.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): This is the first Order made under Section 3 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, which empowers my right hon. Friend to specify the method of valuing certain types of property for rating purposes. The object is to simplify and add certainty to the process of valuation. Despite the length and detail of the Order, I am assured that it will achieve that object. Hon. Members may feel that the complexities existing before the Order were considerable. The Order relates to property only in England and Wales, property occupied by the National Coal Board in connection with coal production. It takes effect on 1st April next, the day on which the new valuation lists come into force, and the values in the lists have been ascertained accordingly.
The starting point of the scheme is the rateable values of the various Coal Board properties in the present valuation lists. These first have to be adjusted in accordance with the changes in the output of coal in the intervening period, then for additional liabilities of the Coal Board in respect of subsidence compensation, for industrial rerating, and for the development of values between 1956, when the last lists were made, and 1963.
In future, the values attached to the mines and opencast workings will vary from year to year according to the coal output. At revaluations there will be a general adjustment of values to allow for the change in the level of values in other mineral working industries as a whole. The comparison is made with mines and quarries, but not with those extracting industries, such as brickmaking, where there is confusion between extraction and production. In this way, Coal Board values will keep pace with the values of other properties of the same class.
I should add that there is a requirement in Section 3 (4) of the Act and my right hon. Friend, following that requirement, has consulted the Coal Board, the local authority associations and the London County Council about the Order, I assure the House that the scheme which

it embodies commands the support of all those bodies.
The enabling Section to which I have referred requires the Minister, in consultation with the same parties, to carry out a full review of the working of the Order in 1968–69 and to lay a report before Parliament. Although the Order is very long, and I think the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) will agree not easily assimilated, I am assured that it will greatly facilitate valuations in what cannot be described as a simple field, and I hope that the House will approve the Order.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I think that we are now a little better informed about the contents of the Order than we were after the hon. Gentleman's first speech. I think that the House would do right to approve the Order.
This is an important matter, and its importance has been highlighted by the many comments that are being made by domestic ratepayers about rates. Whatever else one may say about that, it is important to be able to assure domestic ratepayers as a whole that the share of the rates being paid by other people, by industry, by commerce, and by the nationalised industries, is at any rate their fair share of the rates, and the object of this Order is to ensure both that they pay their fair share, and that the method of calculating it is as simple as possible.
It is not possible to make it very simple. It is an obscure and difficult matter trying to apply the concept of rating to the properties of the National Coal Board, but when the relevant Act was under consideration the House considered very carefully how this ought to be done and approved the method of which this Order is now an example, and as I follow the Order it appears to have carried out quite properly the intentions of the Act.
I notice with interest that in trying to calculate what is the joint effect of revaluation and rerating on mineral working hereditaments as a whole throughout the country the conclusion that has been come to is that one ought to multiply it by a factor of two and five-sixths. I think that this is a good deal less than the factor by which industry as a whole is multiplied, but I take it that this is due to the fact that for this purpose the values of purely


extractive industries have not gone up by as much as manufacturing processes, and that is what one would expect.
Those who are concerned for the finances of the National Coal Board will, I think, be glad to notice that allowance is made for the special charges that it has had to meet in respect of subsidence, and those who are concerned about the revenues of local authorities will be glad to know that the final result has the approval of all the local authority associations and the London County Council.
I half expected to see the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) here in view of the great anxieties they have displayed on previous occasions that nationalised industries should pay their full share of the rates. However, they have left it to the rest of us to be the guardians of the ratepayers on this occasion.
I suppose one must congratulate the Government on the fact that in this rating field at any rate they have managed to arrive at a conclusion which is agreeable both to the persons who will be paying the rates and to the local authorities who will be receiving them. They will not encounter that experience in any other rating matter. I believe that in general this is carrying out properly the intentions of the Act, and, so far as we can do it within the general framework of rating, reaching a solution which is as simple as a matter of this kind can be, and that it holds the balance fairly between the National Coal Board and other ratepayers.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Coal Board (Valuation) Order. 1963, dated 1st March, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to development comprised in Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 and Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, it is expedient 4o authorise the payment out of

moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to any such provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment other than that Act on account of or in consequence of expenditure incurred by local authorities in the payment of compensation for the revocation or modification of planning permission or of other planning decisions which are treated for the purposes of compensation as the revocation or modification of such permission.

Resolution agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation Signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

9.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the powers of local authorities to defray expenses incurred by their members or by other members of their committees or sub-committees, and to contribute to other local authorities and to bodies having activities connected with local government; to authorise certain expenditure by local authorities for the benefit of their areas or inhabitants but not otherwise authorised; and to make further provision with respect to the financial affairs of local authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.
The Bill makes no provision for direct Exchequer expenditure or for specific grants to local authorities, but it provides new powers for local authorities. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 could give rise to some very small additional expenditure, and this would rank for rate-deficiency grant for those local authorities entitled to receive it. In addition, the increase in the total amount of rate-deficiency grant payable to local authorities in England and Wales could possibly have a very small effect on the total calculation of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant in Scotland. I understand that if there were any move at all it would be upwards in both parts of the country. This is because the provision for calculating the Scottish grant ensures that Scottish


authorities shall be treated no less favourably than those in England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

PROCEDURE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Select Committee on Procedure do consider methods of expediting the passage of Bills containing provisions of the kinds which are usually included in Finance Bills, being a matter relating to the procedure in the public business of the House.
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do consider what provision may be necessary to ensure the passage of such Bills within an appointed time—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely we are entitled to some further explanation of this important procedural change. Perhaps the Leader of the House can state why this proposal should be confined to Finance Bills, whereas other matters of expenditure are not included in this remit. We have been considering ways and means of regulating public expenditure, and we would have been delighted if the Leader of the House, instead of limiting this proposal to financial arrangements for getting the money, would remit to this Committee proposals concerning the way in which public expenditure could be dealt with before the matter reaches this stage. The House is concerned not so much with the number of days taken in discussing the Finance Bill, but about the immense amount of public money which is passed for expenditure without real consideration. We have had complaints this evening from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the inadequate amount of attention which has been given to the consideration of the huge sums of money which have been dealt with this week. We should like an explanation from the Leader of the House about why there is an omission, and why certain important flaws in our procedure have not been considered in this Resolution.
I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he is satisfied with the procedure which we have gone through in the last fortnight, when the expenditure of nearly £2,000 million of public money has been

sanctioned, with a small attendance of hon. Members in the Chamber and little consideration of the suggestions about how this amount should be reduced. I suggest—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Gritnston): Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should go too far in this matter. It is not covered by the Resolution, which remits to the Select Committee the matter of Bills and not Supply expenditure.

Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to stray from the strict order of procedure. But I suggest that what I have said should be considered by the Leader of the House and this Resolution should take cognisance of the real grievances which need to be expressed. I hope we may have some assurance—I see that the Leader of the House is anxious to give the House further information—and I should like an assurance from him that the whole of the spending of this huge sum of money will receive considerably more attention.

9.57 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): May I put this point to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He will realise that in three minutes' time it will be ten o'clock and, as this is not exempted business, if it is not completed by ten o'clock it falls and we shall have to take it on some other occasion. I am sure that the House would like this matter to go urgently to the Select Committee on Procedure. That certainly was the sense of the House a short time ago.
The hon. Member will realise that am speaking against time. I shall certainly take into consideration the point he has made. We must have the Order referring things to the Select Committee, and clearly, because we are within a week or two of the Budget debate, and after that the consideration of the Finance Bill, it is right that the Select Committee on Procedure should be asked to consider this matter first. There are many other matters which have been put to me, including the one mentioned by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, and I will gladly consider an order of work, as it were, the precedence of work, after this matter has been disposed of. But unless we take this Resolution fairly swiftly and


enable the Select Committee on Procedure to go ahead with its work it will not be possible for the House to consider whether an improvement can be made for the Finance Bill this year.
I hope with that explanation the hon. Member will allow this Motion to go forward. It is coupled with an assurance from me that the point he mentioned, and the other points put to me by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about the future work of the Select Committee on Procedure, will be most carefully considered when this matter has been disposed of.

Question put and agreed to.

PROCEDURE

Mr. Nigel Birch and Mr. Douglas Houghton added to the Select Cornmittee.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

ROADS, ILFORD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for being in his place tonight to answer this debate. I want to draw the attention of the House to a particular matter which concerns my constituents, but which has very important general implications in so far as it represents a conflict which will be found throughout Greater London, a conflict between local convenience and through traffic.
I want to explain the details. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has taken powers to regulate traffic on main thoroughfares throughout Greater London. Eventually the Greater London Council will do this and my constituents will be represented on that body. In the meantime, the responsibility falls on me to make representations on their behalf to my right hon. Friend. In exercising those powers my right hon. Friend has decided to try out an experiment to minimise accidents and to maximise traffic flow on main thoroughfares which run through

residential districts by closing all the intersections which have heretofore existed in the central reservations of dual carriageways. It so happens that the scene of his current experiment is in Woodford Avenue which cuts through the Clayhall Ward of my constituency.
Eventually my right hon. Friend will be deciding how many of these intersections are to be closed permanently. The closing of these intersections has a cornsiderable impact on many of my constituents, on their safety and convenience. For my right hon. Friend it will be primarily a matter of traffic management and convenience, but to my constituents who happen to live there, to have their being there and live their lives in the area there are other and more humdrum implications. My object tonight is to make certain that, whatever other considerations he may have in mind when he makes his final decision about Woodford Avenue, he shall be in no doubt about what local people feel. That is what I shall tell him tonight.
The House will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is also interested in this matter. I am most obliged to him for the information he has given me on behalf of his constituents. In making this plea I want to make certain acknowledgments. First, my constituents in the Clayhall Ward are fortunate in having two representatives on Ilford Borough Council who are particularly alert and conscientious in their work, Councillor Mrs. Chamberlin and Councillor Norwood. Councillor Norwood has been most active in focusing public attention on the problem.
My first reaction on receiving representations about this area was to suggest to my right hon. Friend that his traffic adviser—whose recommendations will undoubtedly greatly affect his final decision—should come to Ilford and look at Woodford Avenue with me and a party of local people led by Councillor Norwood on the spot at peak traffic hours. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for having allowed these arrangements to be made and for the visit to take place on Friday, 1st March between 5.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. The local party included Councillor Escote, of the Wanstead and Woodford Borough Council, whose advice and knowledge are most valuable. Every one who was present on that occasion


would like to thank the traffic adviser for the thoroughness, the patience and courtesy with which he considered every point that was put to him. I am personally confident that as a result of action taken in this way every possible anxiety felt by people in the locality is fully appreciated in my right hon. Friend's Department.
I want to indicate what those anxieties are, to ask my hon. Friend certain questions and to seek certain assurances from him. It is only right that the House should be made aware of this matter in the general public interest, quite apart from the general consultations we have had with the adviser to my right hon. Friend. Woodford Avenue, from the Beehive Lane roundabout to the Charlie Brown roundabout, is too long a stretch to keep motorists who live locally and go to town every day to business or who live and work locally without a chance of turning right. It is the longest stretch of this kind in 27 miles of the North Circular and Great West Roads.
These are the sort of difficulties that arise. In regard to local enterprises, there are 16 firms in the trading estate in the Lamb's Garage area. These local enterprises have vans which make many trips a day. They have to add up to two and a half miles to each trip. Lamb's Garage alone told me that it involves an extra 1,000 miles a week. Milk floats have to make detours involving uphill journeys for which their batteries are simply not adequate. A man who lives at the Woodford end of Woodford Avenue on the north side and has to drive west to business every day now has to drive east to Beehive roundabout and all the way back, again two and a half miles.
One man told me that he has a flat on one side of Woodford Avenue and his garage opposite on the other, and when he could go through the intersection he had to make a journey of 100 yards but he now has to go two and a half miles. Secondly, many motorists whose homes lie just east of Clayhall Avenue and who used to drive to business down Clayhall Avenue, cross Woodford Avenue, and then proceed London-wards to the westward each morning now try to avoid doubling back to the eastwards by making their way towards the Beehive roundabout through residential roads which lie on

the north side of Woodford Avenue. The result is that these narrow residential roads such as Abbotswood and Longwood, many of them already congested by double parking, are becoming dangerous thoroughfares just at the time when children are on their way to the Caterham and Park Hill Schools, and at night in particular these roads are inadequately lit for traffic of this kind. A somewhat similar situation arises, I am told, in the Roding Ward of Woodford and this also affects, because it blocks the main roads further north, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell, whom I am glad to see in his place.
Thirdly, we are getting the worst of both worlds by this arrangement. Motorists complain of delay because they have the extra distance to travel, and also the extra traffic which would previously have been drawn off through the intersection causes traffic jams at Beehive and Charlie Brown roundabouts, and, although we may be increasing speed, we are not in fact saving time. Pedestrians, especially old people and young women with children, getting off buses and trying to cross the road at Woodford Avenue, find that traffic is going much faster than it ever did before, because it is not held up, as it used to be, by traffic turning right at Clayhall Avenue junction. So there is never even that chance which they used to have of nipping across safely. I cannot imagine how any young mother pushing a pram, perhaps with a young toddler beside her, can cross. It is even worse as she has to try to get a pram over the new blocking of the intersection which is made by a very high stone kerb.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will also bear in mind that Stoneleigh Court, which is a block of council flats for elderly people, is also in this neighbourhood and there are a large number of old people who have to get across the road coming or going by bus.
May I at this point make certain suggestions? Many of the people I represent would find some alleviation of their troubles if the following arrangements were to be made. First, at the Clayhall Avenue Junction a pedestrian subway should be provided. I believe that this is coming anyway, but it would be helpful if we could have a firm date for this.


Secondly, until the subway is ready it would be helpful to have traffic lights to help pedestrians crossing. Thirdly, an intersection for Clayhall residents westbound along Woodford Avenue at this junction is absolutely necessary, I am sure. Even better than an intersection would be eventually a roundabout here, because if we merely had an intersection it would be a temptation to motorists to try to make U-turns, and I do not think that U-turns can really be allowed here, because heavy lorries could not in fact make them in the width of Woodford Avenue.
Further, somewhere between Clayhall Avenue junction and the Beehive roundabout some protection must be provided for pedestrians crossing, whether it be by lights or by subway or by a temporary footbridge. There should also somewhere along this stretch be at least one intersection with a refuge cut into the central reservation to allow cars to move off the main flow of traffic before turning. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would direct the attention of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis to the persistent disregard of the 40 m.p.h. speed limit all along Woodford Avenue, about which my constituents are complaining.
I should like to put two more local questions to him. First, how long is this experiment to go on, how soon does he expect to be able to make his decision on the final scheme for Woodford Avenue, and what procedures for further local inquiry and consultation will he preserve? Secondly, regarding the similar problem in Eastern Avenue, westward of Gants Hill, will my hon. Friend explain his intentions and give an assurance, further to what he said in reply to a Question the other day, that the intersection opposite The Drive will not be closed? This is particularly important to residents on the Cathedral Estate, south of Eastern Avenue, who depend on this intersection being open for their 147 bus service link with the centre of Ilford.
There are two general points I wish to raise with my hon. Friend. Firstly, can he tell the House what conclusions he has drawn from the closing of the intersections in Eastern Avenue, which has already been in operation for a couple of years, east of Gants Hill? What effect has this closure had, as a policy, on the number of accidents? An

answer my hon. Friend gave recently to a Question I put to him suggested that after a quite dramatic initial improvement the accident rate climbed in the second year far more than could be accounted for by any increase in the volume of traffic.
Secondly, will he give his personal attention—and this is perhaps, in general terms, one of the most important points I wish to bring out in this debate—to clearing the lines of communication between his Department and the chairmen of highways committees of local authorities and their chief officials? Everyone who met his adviser—and his first-class personal staff—when he visited us knows that one could not hope for a more human, approachable or sensible person or a more sensible or less bureaucratic setup. We in Ilford now know who is at the other end of the telephone and that the line is open and clear. I hope that the members and officials of the Ilford Borough Council will take advantage of this because, frankly, I think that the relations previously between the borough and my hon. Friend's Department had been indifferent. No one quite knew who was doing what or why, and there was a general atmosphere of ignorance, suspicion, mistrust and obstructiveness.
It would have been only sensible, for example, for the two valuable councillors I have mentioned to have been put in the picture personally much earlier, to say nothing of the chairmen of the highways committees of the two boroughs concerned, instead of relying on compliance with the letter of the law by mere public advertisement. This sort of thing is unnecessary between people of manifest intelligence and good will, and I hope that the meeting I arranged and this debate, plus the reply we will receive from my hon. Friend, will remove any doubts and restore confidence in this respect.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I share with a number of my constituents gratitude to my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Ilford. North (Mr. Iremonger) who has raised this widespread grievance which is keenly felt in my constituency as well as in his. He has put the case with a wealth


of detail and admirable clarity and I do not wish to detain the House or prevent my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary from having adequate time in which to reply. I hope that it will be a helpful and hopeful reply and that the feeling of gratitude I feel for my hon. Friend may be extended to the Ministry of Transport as well.

10.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I should like, first, to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) for raising this subject tonight. He and I had had quite a lot of correspondence about it, and there have been a number of Parliamentary Questions and Answers in the last few months. As he said, the object of his raising the matter tonight was largely to let me know—and, through me, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport—what is the strength of local feeling on this matter.
If I may say so to my hon. Friend with all respect, we already knew that there was some local feeling. We did not really need an Adjournment debate to tell us that, but I welcome this opportunity—I do not pretend that I do not—because it enables me to say a little about the background of the matter, and to explain in more detail than one can in answer to Parliamentary Questions what is behind this experiment.
My hon. Friend was kind enough to give me notice of a number of questions he wanted to ask this evening. I will try in due course to give him answers, but before I embark on the general aspects of the problem perhaps I may say a word about consultation. No one welcomes sensible consultation with local authorities or other local bodies—or even with responsible individuals—more than we do in the Ministry of Transport. I think the House knows that we are grappling with an extremely difficult problem of combining the safe flow of traffic at a reasonable speed with the ever-present problem of road accidents. The problem we are now discussing is an example of that.
In the very nature of things, some of the techniques we must use to try to deal with these matters create local problems. People object, people have very strong feelings, and often we find that by con-

sultation, which we are only too willing to enter into, we can either set fears at rest or get experience and knowledge of some particular aspect, of which we can take care quite easily, in the particular scheme we draw up to deal with the matter. I can therefore give my hon. Friend the clear assurance for which he asks that we will be very willing at any time to discuss with the Ilford Borough Council, with the councillors whom he has mentioned by name tonight, quite rightly, and indeed, with any body of local residents, any of the problems this experiment is throwing up. I hope that my hon. Friend will carry that assurance to his constituents.
Another problem that we face in Ilford is one that is not exclusive to Ilford. In our experience, far too many accidents occur on dual carriageway roads when vehicles move through the gaps that are left in the central reservation. We call these gaps. My hon. Friend referred to them as "intersections", which is a term of art in the Ministry, and I know that he will forgive me if I correct him. I shall be talking about gaps in the central reservation. Our accident reports all over the country show that some of these gaps can well be black spots where the proportion of serious accidents is very high.
We hope that we can lessen the number of these accidents by removing their cause, and we have already had some success. My hon. Friend mentioned the section of Eastern Avenue between the roundabout at Gants Hill and, I think, Ley Street. The problem there has been quite severe in the past and, as a result, we closed all but one of the gaps in the central reservation. That was done over three years ago, and it is interesting to note that over those three years the number of personal injury accidents has been 78, but that for the three years before the gaps were closed the number of such accidents was 101. There has therefore been in that particular section a substantial fall in the accident rate, as a direct result, I am advised, of closing the gaps.
We are in no doubt that we must close gaps that are unnecessary. We realise that by closing other gaps we may well cause inconvenience—often quite substantial inconvenience—to people who live or have their business near the road. People may often be obliged to use an


entirely different and, perhaps, very much longer route to get from point to point, so we have to try, somehow, to find a formula for weighing the inconvenience caused by closing each gap against the danger of leaving it open.
In the London Traffic Area there are a number of lengths of dual carriageway road where dangerous gaps of this kind exist. and we have all of them under review at present. Much the same problem arises when we convert a section of road into a dual carriageway by constructing a central reservation. Here, again, we are reviewing the position.
I should now like to come to the length of dual carriageway that is partly in the constituency of Ilford, North, which is Woodford Avenue, and its continuation, Southend Road—the A.406. We felt that it was desirable here to have an experiment in closing the existing gaps in the central reservation. In June of last year we advertised in the local Press inviting those who might be affected by our closing the gaps to make representations to us. This gave rise to very considerable opposition. We felt, nevertheless, that the experiment should start, as it did, in November last year. The intention is to continue it for a period up to six months in the first instance.

Mr. Iremonger: From now?

Mr. Hay: No, it is six months from November last year. We are keeping a very close watch on the effect of these measures on the accident rate. This stretch of road has had a consistently high record of accidents. My hon. Friend asked me about the figures. Over the last three years, there have been 147 accidents on this stretch and 37 of these have been directly attributable to the gaps. We are also taking account of the comments which we receive. Inevitably, many of these comments consist of criticism, often loud and deep criticism of what we are doing. It is a curious thing in the Ministry of Transport that those people who object to what we do always write and tell us but those who approve of our traffic measures seldom bother to take the trouble.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: You cannot win.

Mr. Hay: As the hon. Member says one cannot win in this particular Ministry.

This experiment has now been running for just over four months and I do not think that we should be justified in coming to firm conclusions after such a short experimental period. We have to bear in mind that in January and February last we had quite extraordinary weather conditions, quite out of the normal, and therefore I think that it would be very difficult to come to any conclusions on the expirence of those two months.
I think that the experiment has to go on if we are to learn anything of value from it. Perhaps it would be of some comfort to my hon. Friend and his constituents if I say now that I do not rule out the possibility of modifying the experiment after a month or so by opening a gap which has been closed and which has caused very great inconvenience. This is the gap to which my hon. Friend referred at Clayhall Avenue. I am not making a firm promise to openit—I must make that clear. I am only making a promise to look again very closely at the position.
My hon. Friend has mentioned that earlier this month he and some of his constituents had the opportunity of meeting on the site representatives of my Ministry, and I understand that a very thorough discussion resulted, to the mutual benefit of both sides. We have promised that we will meet the interested parties again before my right hon. Friend reaches a final decision on this experiment. When we have learned what the experiment has to teach us, we shall be able to decide which gaps should remain open and which should be closed, not only in Ilford but on many other similar roads in the metropolitan area. When we are making such decisions we shall take into account all the representations we receive. I can put on record an assurance that gaps will not be closed without our first advertising our intention to do so, so that we can judge whether it would cause serious inconvenience. If, after we have advertised, the local authority or organised groups of local residents wish to make representations to us and discuss the matter, we shall be only too happy to do so.
I turn to the various questions which my hon. Friend put and of which, as I have said, he gave me notice. I think that some of them have been partially answered already by what I have said.
As for the junction with Clayhall Avenue, this is one of the modifications suggested to us and we will look at it, but this has always been a very dangerous gap and I find that as long ago as November, 1961, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North was asking the Minister of Transport what action he was taking to make the junction less dangerous. A related question was whether a pedestrian subway could be provided at this point. We will certainly provide such a subway. I give an assurance about that, but it may take as long as two years before the work can be completed. We shall have to acquire some land and, what is perhaps more important, to build the subway there would mean disturbing the apparatus of statutory undertakers, gas, water, electricity and drains which lie underneath the road. It is a rather difficult job from an engineering point of view and therefore will take some time to carry out.
My hon. Friend asked whether an additional gap can be provided in the central reservation to avoid congestion at roundabouts and excessive speeding between them. I have some hesitation in agreeing to provide a gap in the central reservation to enable motorists to make a U-turn, although to do so might well be of some help to local residents. We would prefer to seek some other method of easing any congestion which arises at the roundabouts. My hon. Friend asks whether we are doing anything about speeding. My answer is that we have now asked the police to pay special attention to the enforcement of the 40 m.p.h. limit which exists on this stretch of road.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to the increase in the volume of traffic in residential roads which border Woodford Avenue, which is claimed to be the result of our experiment. He mentioned danger to children going to school. I am advised that the traffic which uses these residential roads will mostly be local traffic and that a considerable volume of traffic from outlying areas, and particularly from Chigwell, which used to join Woodford Avenue at Clayhall Avenue junction through the gap which I have mentioned will now not be passing through the area but will be going down entirely different roads because it can no longer get through the gap at Clayhall Avenue.
I hope that I have fully answered in the time available the various questions which my hon. Friend has raised and that have given an adequate picture of what we are trying to do and why we are trying to do it. We shall try to make the right decisions in the light of the lessons we can learn from this experiment and from the representations made to us. I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend and his constituents will agree that this is a sensible course to take. I assure him that we will certainly take into account everything said to us by our critics as well as by those who approve of what we are doing. But I cannot leave the House and my hon. Friend's constituency with the impression that this is not a difficult problem with which we have to deal in balancing the needs of traffic and in making reasonable progress in dealing with what has been the appalling accident record on this road for so long.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that there is no connection between this experiment and the idea which is becoming very prevalent in traffic circles of eliminating right-hand turns?

Mr. Hay: There is no direct connection. We are dealing here with a specific type of problem where there is a dual carriageway and there are gaps in the reservation which enables traffic to turn right. By blocking the gap one prevents the right-turning movement, but the abolition of a right turn at the intersection of crossroads has nothing to do with a dual carriageway. At an ordinary intersection of that kind it is often necessary to stop a right-turning movement because the volume of right-turning traffic is such as to clog traffic completely. We have often had this experience and therefore we are adopting methods in different places of banning a right-turning movement and diverting traffic first left then right and then right again to adjoining roads to enable the traffic to cross the junction at a right angle. There is no comparison directly between what is under discussion tonight and that method of traffic management.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.